Matt D Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 What confines do you have in baking a cake? Still, I'll amend my statement since it was obviously unclear due to pronouns and there is a further element. If a wrestler has the best match that someone could reasonably have within certain confines consistently over time, he's a great wrestler. Also, the job of a wrestler can vary from match to match. It is not always to have a five star classic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 A match can be good without being a five-star classic. I would never argue otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 It's the perfect metric, and it's a fair metric. Who had the better career? It just means it's impossible for a wrestler whose prime is primarily in that company to be a GOAT candidate. Bret Hart gets penalized for working in the WWF. Tough. I'm not going to pretend he didn't work there. It's clearly NOT a perfect metric. Might it be the best metric? Yes. But I think it goes without saying that it's not a perfect metric for reasons we have covered several times in the past. One aside that I would note is that sometimes having a match that's "better" is not actually good wrestling in the sense that I understand the term. A good example would be Ric Flair v. George South. Watching as a kid in 1988 I was freaking out thinking "holy shit this guy who always loses is getting near falls on the world champion!" I can remember running to my dad and saying that. His response? "I guess the World Champion isn't very good." Compare that to someone like Bock working Milliman (not the one on youtube unfortunately). Milliman gets a moment or two or maybe even three. But at no point do you think HOLY SHIT THE MILKMAN IS GONNA WIN! Bock shows his ass enough to make the other guy look credible, but not so much that the other guy looks like his equal, let alone his superior. Flair v. South is probably better than Bock v. Milliman. But I think Bock's performance was better in conjunction with the role he's supposed to be playing. And ultimately that matters a lot to me as a fan. None of this is to say I think Bock is better than Flair or that Flair wrestled all jobbers that way. Just a general observation about "great matches" or even "good matches" as measuring tools and why they are clearly not "perfect." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 Also, if anyone can lay out a match in advance that's really good, why aren't there more really good matches?I have a feeling, Matt, if you and me were given two competent wrestlers, a finish and a timeframe to do it in, we could lay out an excellent match between them, provided we had the time and resources we need. That still doesn't mean it would be any good. The skeleton of a good match may shine through, but it may still have major flaws because of the limitations of the wrestlers. By the way, when you come into massive amounts of wealth wealth, we will do this. The finish will be the heel being unable to hit his finisher due to limb work set up in the first part of the match. The WON Message Board will hate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 It's the perfect metric, and it's a fair metric. Who had the better career? It just means it's impossible for a wrestler whose prime is primarily in that company to be a GOAT candidate. Bret Hart gets penalized for working in the WWF. Tough. I'm not going to pretend he didn't work there. It's clearly NOT a perfect metric. Might it be the best metric? Yes. But I think it goes without saying that it's not a perfect metric for reasons we have covered several times in the past. We have argued the point before, but I have never conceded that. One aside that I would note is that sometimes having a match that's "better" is not actually good wrestling in the sense that I understand the term. A good example would be Ric Flair v. George South. Watching as a kid in 1988 I was freaking out thinking "holy shit this guy who always loses is getting near falls on the world champion!" I can remember running to my dad and saying that. His response? "I guess the World Champion isn't very good." Compare that to someone like Bock working Milliman (not the one on youtube unfortunately). Milliman gets a moment or two or maybe even three. But at no point do you think HOLY SHIT THE MILKMAN IS GONNA WIN! Bock shows his ass enough to make the other guy look credible, but not so much that the other guy looks like his equal, let alone his superior. Flair v. South is probably better than Bock v. Milliman. But I think Bock's performance was better in conjunction with the role he's supposed to be playing. And ultimately that matters a lot to me as a fan. None of this is to say I think Bock is better than Flair or that Flair wrestled all jobbers that way. Just a general observation about "great matches" or even "good matches" as measuring tools and why they are clearly not "perfect." We are debating two different things -- talent and career run of output. Debating talent on its own, I would put many wrestlers above Flair, maybe even Bock after watching more footage from him. This is something I have said many times in this and other threads. I care more about career run of output. What other metrics are there that aren't theoretical or overly subjective? Should we debate who had a better foot stomp? I genuinely don't understand. If great matches aren't the best metric, then please explain what is. I genuinely believe the only reason people are arguing that great matches are a flawed metric is because it means Ric Flair is the hands down winner, and that's a boring, status quo answer. Is that incorrect? If not, I will apologize now for making that assumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 It's the perfect metric, and it's a fair metric. Who had the better career? It just means it's impossible for a wrestler whose prime is primarily in that company to be a GOAT candidate. Bret Hart gets penalized for working in the WWF. Tough. I'm not going to pretend he didn't work there. It's clearly NOT a perfect metric. Might it be the best metric? Yes. But I think it goes without saying that it's not a perfect metric for reasons we have covered several times in the past. We have argued the point before, but I have never conceded that. One aside that I would note is that sometimes having a match that's "better" is not actually good wrestling in the sense that I understand the term. A good example would be Ric Flair v. George South. Watching as a kid in 1988 I was freaking out thinking "holy shit this guy who always loses is getting near falls on the world champion!" I can remember running to my dad and saying that. His response? "I guess the World Champion isn't very good." Compare that to someone like Bock working Milliman (not the one on youtube unfortunately). Milliman gets a moment or two or maybe even three. But at no point do you think HOLY SHIT THE MILKMAN IS GONNA WIN! Bock shows his ass enough to make the other guy look credible, but not so much that the other guy looks like his equal, let alone his superior. Flair v. South is probably better than Bock v. Milliman. But I think Bock's performance was better in conjunction with the role he's supposed to be playing. And ultimately that matters a lot to me as a fan. None of this is to say I think Bock is better than Flair or that Flair wrestled all jobbers that way. Just a general observation about "great matches" or even "good matches" as measuring tools and why they are clearly not "perfect." We are debating two different things -- talent and career run of output. Debating talent on its own, I would put many wrestlers above Flair, maybe even Bock after watching more footage from him. This is something I have said many times in this and other threads. I care more about career run of output. What other metrics are there that aren't theoretical or overly subjective? Should we debate who had a better foot stomp? I genuinely don't understand. If great matches aren't the best metric, then please explain what is. I genuinely believe the only reason people are arguing that great matches are a flawed metric is because it means Ric Flair is the hands down winner, and that's a boring, status quo answer. Is that incorrect? If not, I will apologize now for making that assumption. There isn't anything to concede. A perfect metric yields perfect results. Most people would conclude that The Ultimate Warrior has more great matches than Brad Armstrong. If the great match metric is perfect Ultimate Warrior is better than Brad Armstrong (unless you dispute the number of great matches each person had, but we can easily pick two other wrestlers to plug in here and the point stands). Do you believe that? I assume you don't, which is why no concession is needed - no one REALLY believes the great match metric is perfect. Some people do believe it is the BEST metric but that's not the same thing and this is a case where the difference between Perfect and Best is big enough that this isn't splitting hairs. Also we are NOT debating two different things and in fact there is absolute NOTHING in what I wrote addressed the issue of talent/skill at all. Feel free to pull out any quote from that post that you think refers to talent/skill directly or by implication if you want because I'm actually confused as to why you even mention it here other than maybe it's the default fall back when confronted with "great matches aren't everything." In fact in the two matches I mention I think it's almost certainly true that Flair exhibited more talent. There were certainly more athletic spots, more offense, more bumps, et. The Bock mach isn't about "talent" - it's about a world champion wrestling like you would expect the best in the world to wrestle against a marginal (at best) challenger. That's not "talent." That's logic. Again in this particular instance it's not about Flair as you can plug in other cases. In fact I'll do that now. There was a Rey v. Eddie match from SD years back. It was one of Eddie's first title defenses (I think) and that night they ran a mini-tourney to see who would get the shot v. Eddie. IIRC Rey beat Shelton and then Big Show by DQ. He was pretty badly battered in match with Show. He and Eddie ended up having a very good tv match. If you were to pull it up now it would probably hold up very well. But my memory of it is that it was worked remarkably even considering the fact that the champion had a free pass all night and the guy he was working was a 5'3, underdog babyface who had had two matches, the last of which was against a giant who beat his ass. That match was really good and featured two very talented guys showcasing their talents very well. Mark Henry v. Daniel Bryan in the Cage probably wasn't as good a match, especially if you were to watch the two back to back. But the psychology in that match was outstanding the logic of the scenario they were working with was communicated perfectly. Those were "great" performances from Henry and Bryan. I'm not really comfortable saying the same of the performances from Eddie and Rey. The broader point here is that context matters in wrestling. If it doesn't then psychology would be irrelevant and wrestling would be a collection of spots with no rhyme or reason (i.e. ROH). It's not enough to say "Wrestler X has Y number of great matches and is therefore better than Wrestler Z who doesn't have as many." We all recognize this which is why we review and talk about matches and want to know WHY matches were good or great or bad or okay. In talking about why we might just point to thinks like quality of stomps which is of course subjective, but then so is any discussion about output in wrestling. As annoying as it may be there is no universally accepted great match. There may be consensus and overwhelming support. But that doesn't make it any less subjective. It's rare for me to chastise you for anything you would write, because even when we disagree it is usually an amicable disagreement, but I think that last paragraph is weak and a very poor way to talk about this sort of stuff. For starters it could easily be flipped on you - i.e. "the only reason you chose number of great matches as metric is because you know it is the only one that will yield Ric Flair as the answer." That sort of questioning of peoples motivations is something you have been vocal about disliking before, so why do it yourself here? Secondly I don't think it's at all certain that Flair does have the most great matches on tape. Is it possible? Yes. But there are those AJPW guys to think about. If you say "well they were primarily working each other" that's true to a degree (though not in the case of Jumbo or Tenryu), but then you are arguing about something other than output and if output is all that matters kiss that argument goodbye. Okay so we will drop it down to "good" matches. Surely Flair had more of those than anyone in history.....except for the fact that Rey Mysterio Jr. exists. Hell maybe even Lawler would apply here too. In any event I don't think it's clear that Flair had more "good" matches than either of them. Of course you could say "yeah but Flair worked great as a face and heel unlike Rey and did it on a bigger stage and in more places than Lawler" - but that has NOTHING to do with number of good matches so.... Finally I would note that even if we accept great matches as the best indicator of great wrestlers, one could easily argue that volume is a skewed way to look at it. For example why is volume more important than ratio? Why does Flair get a mulligan for years of okay, mediocre, bad and at times outright terrible matches? What if a guy has a higher percentage of good and/or great matches in his career than Flair does (and I would argue many do)? I realize wrestling isn't a sport, but there is a reason that sports statistical analysis has trended in the direction of sabermetrics and things of that ilk over the years. Jack Morris won more games during the 80's than anyone else and the object of baseball is to win - but he wasn't the best pitcher in the 80's. Since I don't want to give the appearance of picking on Flair (The guy would be in my top ten, very possibly top five) I'll point out that the opposite is true as well - if a guy packs of all of his best work into a two year period and retires/drops dead with a high ratio, but low volume can you really compare him to a guy that had a twenty plus year career solely on a ratio metric? La Fiera is awesome every time he turns up, but we don't have a lot of footage with him. Volk Han had less than a hundred career matches (less than 75 probably), but was consistently awesome - still do you rate him over someone like Ricky Morton based on a ratio argument? My answer is no, that there is a balance and that fundamentally there is no "metric" that is even close to perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 I am in the awkward position here of generally being on Matt D's side of this argument as a guy who has been harping on about context for the past 2 years, while being on Loss's side of the argument in thinking Flair is the best, although I don't know if "great matches" have ever been my metric. I'll sit this one out, but just noting now that I'm an interested observer and am keen to see how it will turn out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 There isn't anything to concede. A perfect metric yields perfect results. Most people would conclude that The Ultimate Warrior has more great matches than Brad Armstrong. If the great match metric is perfect Ultimate Warrior is better than Brad Armstrong (unless you dispute the number of great matches each person had, but we can easily pick two other wrestlers to plug in here and the point stands). Do you believe that? I assume you don't, which is why no concession is needed - no one REALLY believes the great match metric is perfect. Some people do believe it is the BEST metric but that's not the same thing and this is a case where the difference between Perfect and Best is big enough that this isn't splitting hairs. The word "perfect" was used flippantly. Yes, I meant "best", not "perfect". I still don't think it's that drastic of a difference, because no one has offered a better way to do it that is universal. I would like to see one suggested. So far, every other point of view seems to either go on a feeling, or it isolates performances in a series of cherry-picked matches made to favor the pre-determined winner and loser of the argument. Likewise, the word "great" is one I use flippantly oftentimes. The Ultimate Warrior may have more truly great matches than Brad Armstrong. The Ultimate Warrior does not have more good/fun/decent/whatever other adjective matches than Brad Armstrong. Of course Brad Armstrong is better. So let's clarify that to start -- "great matches are the perfect metric" should be "good matches are the best metric". I feel like get in these arguments often enough that I shouldn't have to clarify that, because everyone knows what I generally mean, but for the sake of this post, I will do so, and when this inevitably comes up again, I will make it a point to carefully word this. Also we are NOT debating two different things and in fact there is absolute NOTHING in what I wrote addressed the issue of talent/skill at all. Feel free to pull out any quote from that post that you think refers to talent/skill directly or by implication if you want because I'm actually confused as to why you even mention it here other than maybe it's the default fall back when confronted with "great matches aren't everything." If it's the default fall back, it's because it's the default response. Let's look at what you said. One aside that I would note is that sometimes having a match that's "better" is not actually good wrestling in the sense that I understand the term. A good example would be Ric Flair v. George South. Watching as a kid in 1988 I was freaking out thinking "holy shit this guy who always loses is getting near falls on the world champion!" I can remember running to my dad and saying that. His response? "I guess the World Champion isn't very good." Compare that to someone like Bock working Milliman (not the one on youtube unfortunately). Milliman gets a moment or two or maybe even three. But at no point do you think HOLY SHIT THE MILKMAN IS GONNA WIN! Bock shows his ass enough to make the other guy look credible, but not so much that the other guy looks like his equal, let alone his superior. Flair v. South is probably better than Bock v. Milliman. But I think Bock's performance was better in conjunction with the role he's supposed to be playing. And ultimately that matters a lot to me as a fan. I bolded the parts that I specifically think refer to talent. I don't consider wrestling mechanics alone "talent". I consider the ingredients in creating the finished product "talent". A wrestler can have all the physical skills in the world and that doesn't necessarily make him more talented than another wrestler. Tony Mamaluke can do flips that Ric Flair can't. Would anyone argue him as more talented? It's possible that there are individual performances where Bockwinkel faced wrestlers of a similar skill level with similar card placement, where certain aspects of his game were better than aspects of Ric Flair's game. It's possible that he was a better mat wrestler, or a better seller, or whatever else. I don't deny that at all. But it seems like a microanalysis that doesn't take into account the big picture, or context (which I'll touch on in a moment since it's something you specifically mentioned), which is why I don't put much stock in it. I haven't seen Bock/Milliman, but from the way you describe it, it is the better match. It's worked smarter and it has a champion understanding his own role and laying out the match in a way that makes more sense. Flair had a mechanically strong match. Mechanics and talent aren't the same thing. It's not a match I would call "good" because it's tone-deaf. I would apply that to other matches as well, many even involving Flair. Understanding the role as the champion and playing it properly is a talent. Many wrestlers who have been good challengers haven't been able to portray themselves properly as aces because they don't understand the difference. In fact in the two matches I mention I think it's almost certainly true that Flair exhibited more talent. There were certainly more athletic spots, more offense, more bumps, et. The Bock mach isn't about "talent" - it's about a world champion wrestling like you would expect the best in the world to wrestle against a marginal (at best) challenger. That's not "talent." That's logic. Again in this particular instance it's not about Flair as you can plug in other cases. In fact I'll do that now. Logic is a talent. If it wasn't, every match would be logical. I consider wrestlers who give us logical matches talented. Alone, it's not enough to make a match, but it shows a strong command of the basics. Plenty of wrestlers are horrible and have no command of the basics. There was a Rey v. Eddie match from SD years back. It was one of Eddie's first title defenses (I think) and that night they ran a mini-tourney to see who would get the shot v. Eddie. IIRC Rey beat Shelton and then Big Show by DQ. He was pretty badly battered in match with Show. He and Eddie ended up having a very good tv match. If you were to pull it up now it would probably hold up very well. But my memory of it is that it was worked remarkably even considering the fact that the champion had a free pass all night and the guy he was working was a 5'3, underdog babyface who had had two matches, the last of which was against a giant who beat his ass. That match was really good and featured two very talented guys showcasing their talents very well. Mark Henry v. Daniel Bryan in the Cage probably wasn't as good a match, especially if you were to watch the two back to back. But the psychology in that match was outstanding the logic of the scenario they were working with was communicated perfectly. Those were "great" performances from Henry and Bryan. I'm not really comfortable saying the same of the performances from Eddie and Rey. This reminds of me two Liger matches from '92: * Jushin Liger vs Norio Honaga, 2/8/92 * Jushin Liger vs Wild Pegasus, 2/10/92 Both matches have generally the same layout. Liger sells a rib injury and his opponent works him over in various ways. Liger tries to apply a surfboard and can't because of the rib pain. They are laid out almost exactly the same way. Both matches are outstanding. Liger/Honaga is far less athletic than Liger/Pegasus. But Norio Honaga seems more threatening and his offense is far more simple and effective. He doesn't have the athletic ability of Benoit and didn't even try to compete with that. He outshines him with attitude. He wrestles a meaner, more aggressive match. For that reason, I think he had a better match with Liger, following the same template. I wouldn't say Liger/Benoit was "better" than Liger/Honaga, even though it was the same match layout with more cool moves added in. The gap is by no means huge between the two matches either, but the reason I thought Liger/Honaga was a better match was because Honaga's performance was more convincing. And on that point, Honaga had a better match against Liger than Benoit once, but I don't think many people would say Honaga was a better wrestler than Benoit. The reason, at least the one I would give, is that Benoit had more good matches. Honaga's good performances were more isolated, and there's no evidence that he was able to sustain it for any length of time. Had Honaga done this a few dozen times with a variety of guys, there would be a conversation there. He didn't. There's not. The broader point here is that context matters in wrestling. If it doesn't then psychology would be irrelevant and wrestling would be a collection of spots with no rhyme or reason (i.e. ROH). It's not enough to say "Wrestler X has Y number of great matches and is therefore better than Wrestler Z who doesn't have as many." We all recognize this which is why we review and talk about matches and want to know WHY matches were good or great or bad or okay. In talking about why we might just point to thinks like quality of stomps which is of course subjective, but then so is any discussion about output in wrestling. As annoying as it may be there is no universally accepted great match. There may be consensus and overwhelming support. But that doesn't make it any less subjective. Absolutely. There is definitely no universally accepted great match. All we can do when waxing poetic on wrestling is wax poetic on our own views. I don't claim to hold the authority to do it on anyone else's behalf, or speak for all wrestling fans. I can only speak for myself. I speak in absolutes when saying these things a lot of the time, because I see it as a tacit understanding that all that any of us can contribute to a discussion is an opinion. I don't often clarify that I'm stating my opinion, because I think it's obvious that we are all doing that. But if two matches are equal all things considered, and the only difference between them is that one respects its context, and the other one doesn't, then absolutely, the one that does respect its context is the better match. Even if one is mechanically better that doesn't, I would still call the one that does better. It's rare for me to chastise you for anything you would write, because even when we disagree it is usually an amicable disagreement, but I think that last paragraph is weak and a very poor way to talk about this sort of stuff. For starters it could easily be flipped on you - i.e. "the only reason you chose number of great matches as metric is because you know it is the only one that will yield Ric Flair as the answer." That sort of questioning of peoples motivations is something you have been vocal about disliking before, so why do it yourself here? It is an assumption, yes. It's possibly an incorrect one, yes. It's one that I cringed a little when I said it, but I've also thought it for a little while and decided to just post it. I can understand having a negative reaction to that. But I am basing it on some things that I have observed over the years, specifically as it relates to the collective consensus that I've seen in my bubble of the message board universe. 90s All Japan was the greatest thing ever and people got tired of it. Everyone used to love Joshi. Ric Flair was the greatest thing ever and people got tired of him. Then Jumbo became the greatest ever and people are getting tired of him, to a point where you recently said you never want to see one of his matches again. It's not so much that opinions can't change over time. Mine have, and probably will again. A few years from now, I may not consider Flair the GOAT anymore. But opinions aren't better just because they are newer. I have always disagreed with that. People may be tired of Joshi, but it's disappointing that we don't see more posts like, "I haven't been in the mood to watch Joshi in a long time, but to be fair, we should really give Jaguar Yokota some respect." Of course we can burn out on wrestlers or styles and seek others out. But the word "better" has a very specific meaning to me, and when people start tossing that around because there's something they'd rather watch these days, I am a little skeptical of it, because it usually doesn't sustain itself very long. At times it does. We'll see how people are talking about Buddy Rose in 5-10 years. I have tried not to respond to much of what you or others have said about him, because I haven't watched enough footage to properly judge. But I also think that you understand where I'm coming from. Using Buddy Rose as an example, you recently mentioned that on his best day, you think he is the most talented wrestler you've ever seen. Yet you rank Terry Funk above him on a GOAT list, and I'm assuming that's because Terry Funk has more output. And that's a perfectly reasonable point of view. And I don't understand how it's different than my viewpoint of Flair. Secondly I don't think it's at all certain that Flair does have the most great matches on tape. Is it possible? Yes. But there are those AJPW guys to think about. If you say "well they were primarily working each other" that's true to a degree (though not in the case of Jumbo or Tenryu), but then you are arguing about something other than output and if output is all that matters kiss that argument goodbye. I'm open to the idea that over time, Kawada or Hansen may end up above Flair for me. It hasn't happened yet, but it could. And yes, it's not "all that matters". But in my opinion (see, I'm trying), there isn't anything else that matters more. At the end of the day, did they get the job done? But yes, one reason I would put Flair above Lawler, ignoring output, is that I don't like Lawler's in-ring heel work at all. One reason I would put Flair above Funk is that the spaghetti-legged selling turns me off. So yes, there are other factors. I'd rather watch Bret take the sternum-first bump into the ringpost, or watch Pillman go throat first into the guardrail, than watch Flair take a slam off the top rope. But I wouldn't put Pillman or Bret above Flair on an all-time list for two reasons: (1) Pillman and Bret just don't have the body of work that Flair has (2) It's not the individual things a wrestler does that I care about, it's the combined overall effect of what they do and what they get out of what they're doing. Hansen specifically is one I'm interested in looking at more. He's one of the guys I can't wait to watch on the AWA set. My gripe with Hansen has always been that it seemed like his matches in the U.S. just weren't as good. Meanwhile, I've seen Flair go an hour with Jumbo in a match I'm comfortable calling a classic. The first title defense against Jumbo in '81 was excellent too. If Hansen has U.S. matches as good as those, then it's going to become a real toss-up. I don't see a real difference in the level at which Flair works in Japan than I do in the U.S. Okay so we will drop it down to "good" matches. Surely Flair had more of those than anyone in history.....except for the fact that Rey Mysterio Jr. exists. Hell maybe even Lawler would apply here too. In any event I don't think it's clear that Flair had more "good" matches than either of them. Of course you could say "yeah but Flair worked great as a face and heel unlike Rey and did it on a bigger stage and in more places than Lawler" - but that has NOTHING to do with number of good matches so.... We should do the Flair/Rey comparison sometime. I think Flair will come out ahead pretty easily. I just ask that you wait and follow my lead on this instead of starting the conversation now, because I want to have time to do it right. As much as Flair has been talked about through the years, his case would take years to walk through because the volume is so high. I've always seen his case as self-evident. Apparently, it's not. Finally I would note that even if we accept great matches as the best indicator of great wrestlers, one could easily argue that volume is a skewed way to look at it. For example why is volume more important than ratio? Why does Flair get a mulligan for years of okay, mediocre, bad and at times outright terrible matches? Because they happened when he was old and washed up. Because to argue that full-time, 50-something Ric Flair was bad in the late 90s and early 00s is to argue against a point that literally no one I can recall has ever made in his favor, yet it always gets brought up as proof of something, and I'm not sure what that is supposed to be. If you want to counter "Ric Flair was the best wrestler in the world in the 1980s" with "Yeah, but he eventually got old and slipped", I literally have no idea how to counter that, so you win. I'd rather talk about Ric Flair in the 1980s. Who gives a shit about his career when he got old? No one argues it as great, so there's nothing to debate. Old Marlon Brando should not affect anyone's opinion of peak Marlon Brando. Feel free to do a ratio of Flair's prime years. That doesn't just apply to Flair either. You'll notice when I talk about wrestlers, I don't really go after their post-prime all that much, at least in the context of GOAT debates. The reason is that I really don't think it matters even slightly. The whole of the career, fine. Have it out. Point out Flair getting embarrassing. Everything comes to an end. But there is nothing Ric Flair could do after the 1980s were over that would undo what he did during that decade. If we've really decided that it's a weakness that Ric Flair was not 35 forever, I don't know what to do with that. We hear a lot of talk about Terry Funk's second career, but that's a bonus, not part of his case. Right? What if a guy has a higher percentage of good and/or great matches in his career than Flair does (and I would argue many do)? I realize wrestling isn't a sport, but there is a reason that sports statistical analysis has trended in the direction of sabermetrics and things of that ilk over the years. Jack Morris won more games during the 80's than anyone else and the object of baseball is to win - but he wasn't the best pitcher in the 80's. I don't watch baseball, so I don't really get the analogy. But yes, you shift the paradigm, and you get different results. That's true for anything. But if we're in agreement that determining the GOAT is not a math problem, then why promote ratios and downplay simple number of good matches. Since I don't want to give the appearance of picking on Flair (The guy would be in my top ten, very possibly top five) I'll point out that the opposite is true as well - if a guy packs of all of his best work into a two year period and retires/drops dead with a high ratio, but low volume can you really compare him to a guy that had a twenty plus year career solely on a ratio metric? No. La Fiera is awesome every time he turns up, but we don't have a lot of footage with him. Volk Han had less than a hundred career matches (less than 75 probably), but was consistently awesome - still do you rate him over someone like Ricky Morton based on a ratio argument? No. My answer is no, that there is a balance and that fundamentally there is no "metric" that is even close to perfect. There is not. I will concede that much. But if this isn't the best way, I would like to see something presented that is better, with at least an attempt to find standards that can be applied universally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 Regarding the macro and micro discussion, last night I was watching the movie Bad Day at Black Rock when I started nodding off half way through. This morning I got up and finished watching the movie. Afterwards, I went back and watched the stuff I'd nodded off during and having seen the reveal and the film's climax I was able to notice a lot of the set-up and foreshadowing earlier in the film, but despite all that micro detail I still didn't think it was that good a picture on a macro level. I'll freely admit that I'm not very good at noticing micro details during a wrestling match. Oftentimes, I'll be watching a match and wonder "when did that guy get back on offence?" But Flair is a guy who I think has more exciting matches than Hart on a macro level. Maybe if you go through is matches there are micro instances that don't make sense, but if a guy like Hart is doing a lot of great micro stuff but his matches still aren't exciting on a macro level then what's the point? I realise that a lot of stuff that seems great on a macro level on first viewing doesn't hold up on repeat viewings, but I still think the big picture is more important. My impression of working is that you're trying to create an arch from the beginning point to the end. The micro details are important in a book or film, but in wrestling the highspots matter more and the micro details I suppose are there to reward the discerning viewer. I don't think they're anywhere near as essential or necessary as they are in works of fiction, but others may disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exposer Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 Interesting read over the last page. I like the micro in matches. I do often look for it. However, it's really hard for me to say a match is really awesome based off the micro. In fact, what usually makes a match great for me is always having at least one big spot remembered in a match. On the Funks vs. Abby/Shiek matches I always remember Shiek attempting murder by carving Terry up with a spike. When I think of Sarge vs. Iron Shiek I always recall that final boot swing to the face of Sheik. In Wargames 94, Terry Funk getting gonzo bombed between two rings is always there. From Eddie/J.B.L at JD Eddie's bloody mask he wears on his face is going to be there forever. Hell, I love Regal rubbing his forearm in the face of his opponents during pin covers but it's hard for me to think of very many out of this world great Regal matches. There's plenty of good ones and the general great match but there hasn't been one that's totally knocked me off my feet yet. I guess what I'm saying is a lot of times micro is only little points of the match but they don't define the overall picture. All of those spots I mentioned define those matches in one way or another through the whole picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 Can someone explain to me why Flair's micro is bad? When I think back on Flair matches I've seen in the past year, I tend not to think about the high spots but the little things. Most often for me it's the transition into offense and what I've talked about before: his switching up of gears. Does anyone think Bret switching through his gears is better than Flair? Who does that better than Flair? Is there anyone? I often think about the intensity and violence he brings the moment he gets on top: the Luger match at Starrcade 88 has it, the Jimmy Garvin cage match has it. That's the stuff that stays with me much more than the Flair flip, the flops and so on. Some matches make me think of extended bouts of chop suey, and when I think of the Steamboat matches I always picture that long, long standing vertical suplex as well as the butterfly suplex he busts out (just for those matches). But most of the time, it's little things Flair will do, small variations on his usual stuff, or differences in his attitude or mood or whatever that make certain matches stand out. It's one of the reasons I don't like the Sting matches, because nothing like that stands out about them. To me, they just seem like a string of typical Flair spots thrown together and strung out for however long with a few Gorilla Press Slams and splashes thrown in. They don't interest me. Most Flair matches I've seen aren't like that. I think because Flair's style is to be the theatrical showman, it's easy to assume that he's a macro guy, but he's done all sorts of unique things during individual matches that have stuck in my mind. I do think there's a perception that "the little things" mean Billy Robinson cranking on someone's neck and positioning himself in such a way that a counter is not possible -- Flair's little things might be shouting abuse at Ricky Morton about his nose before rubbing his face in the mat, or it might be thrusting his pelvis at Precious, or it might be stopping in the middle of an offensive stretch to shout at a guy in row 3, or it might be flipping a switch and deciding it's time to decimate someone's knee. Flair's a "big" performer but that doesn't mean everything he does is macro. Some of the stuff might be loud or even unsubtle, but it's still micro structurally speaking, none of the things I've mentioned there are high spots or finishes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exposer Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 Can someone explain to me why Flair's micro is bad? When I think back on Flair matches I've seen in the past year, I tend not to think about the high spots but the little things. Most often for me it's the transition into offense and what I've talked about before: his switching up of gears. Does anyone think Bret switching through his gears is better than Flair? Who does that better than Flair? Is there anyone? I often think about the intensity and violence he brings the moment he gets on top: the Luger match at Starrcade 88 has it, the Jimmy Garvin cage match has it. That's the stuff that stays with me much more than the Flair flip, the flops and so on. Some matches make me think of extended bouts of chop suey, and when I think of the Steamboat matches I always picture that long, long standing vertical suplex as well as the butterfly suplex he busts out (just for those matches). But most of the time, it's little things Flair will do, small variations on his usual stuff, or differences in his attitude or mood or whatever that make certain matches stand out. It's one of the reasons I don't like the Sting matches, because nothing like that stands out about them. To me, they just seem like a string of typical Flair spots thrown together and strung out for however long with a few Gorilla Press Slams and splashes thrown in. They don't interest me. Most Flair matches I've seen aren't like that. I think because Flair's style is to be the theatrical showman, it's easy to assume that he's a macro guy, but he's done all sorts of unique things during individual matches that have stuck in my mind. I do think there's a perception that "the little things" mean Billy Robinson cranking on someone's neck and positioning himself in such a way that a counter is not possible -- Flair's little things might be shouting abuse at Ricky Morton about his nose before rubbing his face in the mat, or it might be thrusting his pelvis at Precious, or it might be stopping in the middle of an offensive stretch to shout at a guy in row 3, or it might be flipping a switch and deciding it's time to decimate someone's knee. Flair's a "big" performer but that doesn't mean everything he does is macro. Some of the stuff might be loud or even unsubtle, but it's still micro structurally speaking, none of the things I've mentioned there are high spots or finishes. I think Flair yelling at fans in the third row is micro and good micro. Flair is definitely good at micro. His just doesn't stand out quite as much because his macro is so great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 The word "perfect" was used flippantly. Yes, I meant "best", not "perfect". I still don't think it's that drastic of a difference, because no one has offered a better way to do it that is universal. I would like to see one suggested. So far, every other point of view seems to either go on a feeling, or it isolates performances in a series of cherry-picked matches made to favor the pre-determined winner and loser of the argument. I think it's a monumental difference because I can find many, many exceptions to that metric with very little effort. Whether or not there is a better system is irrelevant in a discussion of whether or not that metric is perfect. I have been accused of being hyperbolic (with good reason) more than most anyone but when I see perfect I think "flawless or so close to flawless that the exceptions are pure flukes." I don't think Great Match Theory (or whatever you want to call it) is even close to being perfect. I'm an agnostic on whether or not it is the best, but if the application of it comes down to filling out a chart where you list the good/great matches of everyone and nothing else is considered I think that's a pretty uninteresting and terrible way of analyzing wrestling. Number of great performances may not be the same as number of great matches. Likewise, the word "great" is one I use flippantly oftentimes. The Ultimate Warrior may have more truly great matches than Brad Armstrong. The Ultimate Warrior does not have more good/fun/decent/whatever other adjective matches than Brad Armstrong. Of course Brad Armstrong is better. So let's clarify that to start -- "great matches are the perfect metric" should be "good matches are the best metric". I feel like get in these arguments often enough that I shouldn't have to clarify that, because everyone knows what I generally mean, but for the sake of this post, I will do so, and when this inevitably comes up again, I will make it a point to carefully word this. I actually had assumed up until reading this that you meant great matches and not good matches. But in any event you can find plenty of exceptions even here with very little effort (who has more good matches on tape Randy Orton or La Fiera? Christian or Buddy Rose? Robert Gibson or Sgt. Slaughter? Ultimo Dragon or Hoshino? et.). I think if someone has a lot of good matches it's a pretty good indicator that they are good worker. But I see no reason to believe that having a higher volume of good matches than someone else is reason alone to rate one person over the other. Far too many cases where I think that is obviously untrue for me to run with that. One aside that I would note is that sometimes having a match that's "better" is not actually good wrestling in the sense that I understand the term. A good example would be Ric Flair v. George South. Watching as a kid in 1988 I was freaking out thinking "holy shit this guy who always loses is getting near falls on the world champion!" I can remember running to my dad and saying that. His response? "I guess the World Champion isn't very good." Compare that to someone like Bock working Milliman (not the one on youtube unfortunately). Milliman gets a moment or two or maybe even three. But at no point do you think HOLY SHIT THE MILKMAN IS GONNA WIN! Bock shows his ass enough to make the other guy look credible, but not so much that the other guy looks like his equal, let alone his superior. Flair v. South is probably better than Bock v. Milliman. But I think Bock's performance was better in conjunction with the role he's supposed to be playing. And ultimately that matters a lot to me as a fan. I bolded the parts that I specifically think refer to talent. I don't consider wrestling mechanics alone "talent". I consider the ingredients in creating the finished product "talent". A wrestler can have all the physical skills in the world and that doesn't necessarily make him more talented than another wrestler. Tony Mamaluke can do flips that Ric Flair can't. Would anyone argue him as more talented? It's possible that there are individual performances where Bockwinkel faced wrestlers of a similar skill level with similar card placement, where certain aspects of his game were better than aspects of Ric Flair's game. It's possible that he was a better mat wrestler, or a better seller, or whatever else. I don't deny that at all. But it seems like a microanalysis that doesn't take into account the big picture, or context (which I'll touch on in a moment since it's something you specifically mentioned), which is why I don't put much stock in it. If the ingredients in creating the finished product is talent, and we can analyze it closely enough where it does not come down to raw mechanics alone, then I see zero reason why number of good matches should be the sole metric for arguing who was better. I want to be clear about this because I'm not positive I'm reading you correctly, but at this point your argument seems dangerously close to being purely mathematical. I am reading you as saying the rough equivalent of "yes it's possible for someone to be mechanically better, know how to put a match together better, know how to play a role better, be more logical, et. but all that matters is volume of output." On this point I honestly don't know where we can go because you seem to be trending very close to the "X has more good matches than Y so X is better regardless of what happens in said matches" territory and that's something I completely disagree with on every level. I don't think Randy Orton is better than La Fiera and I can give you a litany of reasons why. But I cannot tell you I have seen more good La Fiera matches than Randy Orton matches - I haven't. I can tell you I think he was far more versatile, far better at emoting, far better offense, far better brawler, far better big spots, far better timing, far better at putting a match together, far better in tags/multiman scenario, far better on the mat, far better at selling, infinitely better bumper, far better at running the ropes, far better ring gear, far better facial expressions, far better pacing, far better strikes, et. But all of that sounds like "ingredients" to me and with the footage we have Orton has far more good matches. He has more output. If you don't like that comp we could pick others. Comp Sarge to Gibson, Christian to Rose, or pick your own. It's not hard to find them. Christian having more "output" than Buddy Rose will never make him a better wrestler in my mind because those ingredients are pretty damn important (not a knock on Christian who I like, but you get the point) whether you want to call them "talent" or something else. I haven't seen Bock/Milliman, but from the way you describe it, it is the better match. It's worked smarter and it has a champion understanding his own role and laying out the match in a way that makes more sense. Flair had a mechanically strong match. Mechanics and talent aren't the same thing. It's not a match I would call "good" because it's tone-deaf. I would apply that to other matches as well, many even involving Flair. Understanding the role as the champion and playing it properly is a talent. Many wrestlers who have been good challengers haven't been able to portray themselves properly as aces because they don't understand the difference. I honestly can't imagine anyone watching South/Flair and Bock/Milliman back-to-back and thinking Bock/Milliman was better. Not saying it's impossible, but if you polled a hundred people on that I'm not sure even five would go Bock/Milliman. I wouldn't and I am guy who loves logic in wrestling. But I would call Bock's performance better. Whether you want to call that "talent" doesn't matter all that much to me, though I must say again that I think the end game of your argument comes dangerously close to "it doesn't matter what someone does in a match, what matters is the result." And I can't possibly disagree more. And on that point, Honaga had a better match against Liger than Benoit once, but I don't think many people would say Honaga was a better wrestler than Benoit. The reason, at least the one I would give, is that Benoit had more good matches. Honaga's good performances were more isolated, and there's no evidence that he was able to sustain it for any length of time. Had Honaga done this a few dozen times with a variety of guys, there would be a conversation there. He didn't. There's not. I'm not saying if someone has a better match with a common opponent they are automatically better than someone else. Obviously I don't believe that. Having said that the gap is not always Benoit/Honaga level and if we are being honest Benoit is a lot more "talented" than Honaga is as well. If Honaga had five more good matches than Benoit I don't think it automatically follows that he would have been a better wrestler. Hell if he had a hundred more good matches than Benoit I don't think it automatically follows that he would be the better wrestler. Absolutely. There is definitely no universally accepted great match. All we can do when waxing poetic on wrestling is wax poetic on our own views. I don't claim to hold the authority to do it on anyone else's behalf, or speak for all wrestling fans. I can only speak for myself. I speak in absolutes when saying these things a lot of the time, because I see it as a tacit understanding that all that any of us can contribute to a discussion is an opinion. I don't often clarify that I'm stating my opinion, because I think it's obvious that we are all doing that. But if two matches are equal all things considered, and the only difference between them is that one respects its context, and the other one doesn't, then absolutely, the one that does respect its context is the better match. Even if one is mechanically better that doesn't, I would still call the one that does better. There is no reason to preface things with in my opinion. I almost never do it. But when you dismissively joke that arguing about the quality of stomps is an exercise in subjectivity, I think it's worth remembering that so is everything else we do on this board. Sure stomps are not as important as good matches, but I think it is very easy to argue that "ingredients" are if not as important, pretty damn close. The point is not "everything is subjective, thread ender!" The point is the subjectivity of all of this is universal. And that subjectivity applies to the method for deciding who the GOAT is even if we stick within the general framework of good/great matches. It is an assumption, yes. It's possibly an incorrect one, yes. It's one that I cringed a little when I said it, but I've also thought it for a little while and decided to just post it. I can understand having a negative reaction to that. But I am basing it on some things that I have observed over the years, specifically as it relates to the collective consensus that I've seen in my bubble of the message board universe. You said on the podcast that you are someone who came to your own conclusions on Flair over the last five or six years of watching. But you voted him one in the Smarkschoice poll. He is in your avatar. You generally have positive things to say about a lot of Flair matches where there is not a general consensus and a lot of people aren't terribly high on the matches. I don't believe you are rubber stamping Flair because he's your favorite (though I freely admit that I probably give Funk a little leeway because he's mine), but then I talk to you about wrestling an awful lot. An outsider who noticed those things though might say "I think Loss is rigging the game for Flair. I can understand having a negative reaction to that. But I am basing it on some things I have observed over the years, specifically as it relates to his comments and thoughts in my bubble of the message board universe." Now there is nothing wrong with making either observation. But once it's out there, it's out there and the result is usually that people don't trust what the other side is saying. I've been guilty of doing this sort of thing in the past and still do at times, but I try to avoid it more and more because I think it is generally bad for good discussion. 90s All Japan was the greatest thing ever and people got tired of it. Everyone used to love Joshi. Ric Flair was the greatest thing ever and people got tired of him. Then Jumbo became the greatest ever and people are getting tired of him, to a point where you recently said you never want to see one of his matches again. My dislike for Jumbo goes beyond the narrative of him being the greatest ever, though I have zero problem saying that the constant "he's the best ever!" drum beating probably contributed to my general disinterest in him. Joshi is a style that doesn't age well to me. 90's AJPW is just something I've watched a ton of and it's something that is harder to watch on the fly than syndicated WCW or new Lucha. If I were to do a top hundred again Jumbo, Kawada, Taue, Kobashi, Misawa, Hokuto, Kong and others would all do well in spite of these things. It's not so much that opinions can't change over time. Mine have, and probably will again. A few years from now, I may not consider Flair the GOAT anymore. But opinions aren't better just because they are newer. This is entirely fair. The flipside of course is that just because something has been accepted for years doesn't mean that it's true. DK/TM series largely sucks. Brody is trash. Inoki isn't even close to an upper tier Japanese wrestler. New stuff will always get talked about more AND IT SHOULD. It does not follow from this that new things are innately better. I have always disagreed with that. People may be tired of Joshi, but it's disappointing that we don't see more posts like, "I haven't been in the mood to watch Joshi in a long time, but to be fair, we should really give Jaguar Yokota some respect."Of course we can burn out on wrestlers or styles and seek others out. But the word "better" has a very specific meaning to me, and when people start tossing that around because there's something they'd rather watch these days, I am a little skeptical of it, because it usually doesn't sustain itself very long. At times it does. We'll see how people are talking about Buddy Rose in 5-10 years. I have tried not to respond to much of what you or others have said about him, because I haven't watched enough footage to properly judge. Buddy really isn't talked about that much outside of here which is too bad. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical of new opinions, but one of the great things about the modern landscape is that you don't just have to accept them. When Dave Meltzer says the most recent Tokyo Dome show is very possibly the best show in history I can watch it, review it and post my thoughts on it to open forums on the web within a day or two (or even in real time had I ordered the ippv and watched it live). When Loss says Jeff Jarrett is possibly a top twenty U.S. wrestler ever, we can go to the yearbooks to see what the hell he's talking about and decide whether or not we think he's being hyperbolic or offering a keen insight on an overlooked wrestler. There is no lag anymore while we wait around on tapes to be distributed. The footage is out there in various forms. We can pretty quickly figure out what we think is bullshit and what we think isn't. I'm not sure what the point of a thread on Yokota would be if people aren't watching the Joshi, don't have any real thoughts on it and are just saying "boy Yokota deserves respect." If someone wants to have a real discussion about her? Sure. But I don't get the point in posting about a topic you aren't interesting in discussion just so a great worker can get her due on a message board. Also not sure Yokota is a particularly strong name to pull into this thread. I think she's a great wrestler, but her output really isn't that high in the grand scheme of things. But I also think that you understand where I'm coming from. Using Buddy Rose as an example, you recently mentioned that on his best day, you think he is the most talented wrestler you've ever seen. Yet you rank Terry Funk above him on a GOAT list, and I'm assuming that's because Terry Funk has more output. And that's a perfectly reasonable point of view. And I don't understand how it's different than my viewpoint of Flair. I don't think the gap between Buddy and Funk is all that big. In this case output is a big part of the reason I would rank Funk ahead of him though there are other factors (the greatness of Funk as babyface in AJPW and the greatness of his best heel run for example). There are many cases where all other things being equal or close to equal you can go to output. I'm not arguing against output. I'm arguing against output as the only metric that matters and I'm arguing against it as some sort of objective island in a sea of subjectivity. But again I don't think output alone is enough. Taue has more output than Buddy. I like Taue...a lot. More than most. But I think Buddy was the better wrestler. I'm open to the idea that over time, Kawada or Hansen may end up above Flair for me. It hasn't happened yet, but it could. And yes, it's not "all that matters". Kawada very possibly has more great matches. Hansen? I'd have go back and watch the AJPW stuff. It's possible he has more good matches too actually, though I wouldn't want to put money on it. Reading your thoughts above it is REALLY hard to see how you are saying that it isn't all that matters. If all "ingredients" are talent, but volume of good matches still matters more, how much can the ingredients really mean? If Zeus had found a guy to carry him around the horn and he had 100 good matches in a year despite his shitty ingredients, well hell he's probably got more good matches than Brock Lesnar. Definitely more than Volk Han. Yes I realize that's extreme and hypothetical, but we are arguing a philosophical point here that has implications that go beyond silly thought experiments like that. If we agree that we can analyze ingredients beyond mechanics, shouldn't that have a pretty important role in deciding who is better or worse? But in my opinion (see, I'm trying), there isn't anything else that matters more. At the end of the day, did they get the job done? But yes, one reason I would put Flair above Lawler, ignoring output, is that I don't like Lawler's in-ring heel work at all. One reason I would put Flair above Funk is that the spaghetti-legged selling turns me off. So yes, there are other factors. What if someone doesn't like Flair's stock bumps so much that they don't think the matches are good? Criticisms of ingredients often times lead to fatal criticisms of matches. Not always. But even if they don't what if someone concludes that Flair working hard and having a bunch of good matches with a routine is not as impressive as someone who changes it up more and doesn't have as many Flair v. George South type of performances, but there best stuff is excellent? Put another way what difference is there really between saying "Flair's routine hurts his matches enough, where I reject the argument that he has more output" and saying "Flair's routine was a good way to get good matches with a variety of people, but I don't think it was terribly interesting and there are other guys who do so many other things better that I regard them as better?" I'm sure you'd disagree with both arguments and in many ways so would I, but the end game is the same and I think both are legitimate ways of looking at wrestling. I'd rather watch Bret take the sternum-first bump into the ringpost, or watch Pillman go throat first into the guardrail, than watch Flair take a slam off the top rope. But I wouldn't put Pillman or Bret above Flair on an all-time list for two reasons: (1) Pillman and Bret just don't have the body of work that Flair has (2) It's not the individual things a wrestler does that I care about, it's the combined overall effect of what they do and what they get out of what they're doing. I agree on Pillman and Bret not having the body of work Flair had. Both guys had shorter peak runs and shorter runs of quality than Flair. And of course far shorter careers. I also agree that the combined effect matters, but I don't think the end conclusion to that is that X is better than Y because he has more of Z. I'm more interested in why he has more of Z than I am in the fact that he does have more of Z. Hansen specifically is one I'm interested in looking at more. He's one of the guys I can't wait to watch on the AWA set. My gripe with Hansen has always been that it seemed like his matches in the U.S. just weren't as good. Meanwhile, I've seen Flair go an hour with Jumbo in a match I'm comfortable calling a classic. The first title defense against Jumbo in '81 was excellent too. If Hansen has U.S. matches as good as those, then it's going to become a real toss-up. I don't see a real difference in the level at which Flair works in Japan than I do in the U.S. I think the Flair v. Jumbo matches are overrated. I like them, but never really have been blown away by either. Not sure what my favorite Flair match in Japan would be offhand, but I honestly like Hansen v. Hennig better than either of those matches despite it being very short. I think Hansen does very well for himself on the AWA Set when you consider how brief his run there really was and how few tv matches against people of note he actually had. You could argue that the Sarge matches are disappointing on some level, but the baby Vader match is better than it should be, the Blackwell match is really good considering Jerry's mobility issues at that point and one of the two Hennig matches is outstanding to the point of being one of the best sprints I've ever seen. You seem to be higher on his WCW stuff than most people are. I thought his Cage Match with Carlos Colon from WWC that I watched the other day was excellent. Not arguing for Hansen over Flair in this thread and not sure I'd buy it right this second, but he has some strong positives outside of Japan. We should do the Flair/Rey comparison sometime. I think Flair will come out ahead pretty easily. I just ask that you wait and follow my lead on this instead of starting the conversation now, because I want to have time to do it right. As much as Flair has been talked about through the years, his case would take years to walk through because the volume is so high. I've always seen his case as self-evident. Apparently, it's not. I don't think there is any way in hell Flair comes ahead easily. Is it possible he has more good matches that have made tape? No question. By an easy margin? Maybe I should let Exposer step in here, but he's been rewatching Rey matches for the last few weeks and prior to that was working on a sort of master list of good WWE matches that have made television in the post-consolidation era. The total number is astronomical and Rey has been the most consistent wrestler of that era by a wide margin. Yes he's missed big chunks of time but he's appeared on tv an awful lot, including C shows that "stars" rarely worked on. You tack on WCW to that and his work before then in Japan, AAA, ECW, et. and things get dense real quick. Flair wasn't working competitive matches on tv every week for a big chunk of his peak, we have little 70's footage and he worked a much tougher schedule. It's almost certain that Flair has had more good matches in his career total. But more good matches that have made tape? I honestly think the answer is Rey and if you were to ask me which one is more likely to win this one "easily" it would be him not Flair. Of course if you don't like modern WWE or disagree about what makes a good match mileage may vary dramatically. Because they happened when he was old and washed up. Not to be a dick, but so the fuck what? If output is the key indicator, what possible reason could there be for ignoring a huge amount of middling or poor output? Does output matter the most sometimes and not at all other times? Because to argue that full-time, 50-something Ric Flair was bad in the late 90s and early 00s is to argue against a point that literally no one I can recall has ever made in his favor, yet it always gets brought up as proof of something, and I'm not sure what that is supposed to be. If you want to counter "Ric Flair was the best wrestler in the world in the 1980s" with "Yeah, but he eventually got old and slipped", I literally have no idea how to counter that, so you win. I'd rather talk about Ric Flair in the 1980s. Who gives a shit about his career when he got old? No one argues it as great, so there's nothing to debate. Old Marlon Brando should not affect anyone's opinion of peak Marlon Brando. Feel free to do a ratio of Flair's prime years. You are the one who puts output on a pedestal above everything else to the point where talent as a whole (which apparently encompass EVERYTHING other than output) is a marginal way of assessing a wrestler at best. I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that a guy working Flair's schedule was going to break down and break down hard at some point. But I'm not the one talking about output as the primary/sole metric of value in determining the greatness of wrestlers. I'm just trying to understand why some output is more equal than others. That doesn't just apply to Flair either. You'll notice when I talk about wrestlers, I don't really go after their post-prime all that much, at least in the context of GOAT debates. The reason is that I really don't think it matters even slightly. The whole of the career, fine. Have it out. Point out Flair getting embarrassing. Everything comes to an end. But there is nothing Ric Flair could do after the 1980s were over that would undo what he did during that decade. If we've really decided that it's a weakness that Ric Flair was not 35 forever, I don't know what to do with that. Up to now I haven't been arguing it - you have. Unless of course you believe some output is more equal than others. In which case I am even more confused about your general position. Now you are saying that prime matters most and I think that's totally fair. But prime and number of great/good matches don't go hand and hand. You cite Flair's prime as 82-89, but in reading your comments in the yearbook threads I think it's fair to say that you are high on Flair in 90 and see a lot of good matches of his from 91-96. Do you discount those matches when talking about Flair's output? I don't think so. In fact I know you don't because on the podcast you talked about his feud with Luger, which includes some really strong matches in 1990. If output is the metric that matters most in matters in 1982, 1990 and 1999. It doesn't matter sometimes and not others...does it? Now that I've said that I will criticize Flair specifically because it pertains to this other things we are talking about. Flair had his match. He had his shit he liked to do. He kept trying to do it when he physically couldn't anymore and when it became totally senseless to do so. He could have changed the way he worked and eventually did during his American Onita phase, when he had several good matches working the "Dirtiest Player In The Game" gimmick but with a different spin. No Ric Flair wasn't 35 forever (though really that's an odd age to pick for Flair since he was pretty great until he was 40 and pretty good until he was around 45), but he could have changed his ingredients and didn't and that effected his output in a real way. That's not picking on Flair either. There are other guys who have fallen into the same trap, who stayed around too long, who's bodies fell apart, who tried to do things they couldn't anymore, who got lazy, who became jokes, et. But not everyone. Bill Dundee is almost 70. Jerry Lawler is Flair's age. Finlay is 54. Negro Casas is 53. Blue Panther is 52. God knows how old Negro Navarro and Black Terry are (and by god I mean KrisZ). These guys have had very good matches in recent times and with the exception of Dundee (maybe) very good years in recent times. Hell Finlay and Casas were two of the best three best wrestlers in the world in 2012, I thought Panther was the best in the world in 2011, Terry had one of the best runs I've ever seen out of a wrestler in 2010 and Navarro was arguably the best in the world in 2009 (see Mysterio, Rey). Guys like Tenryu, Fujinami, Terry Funk and others had strong performances well into "old age." They also didn't have lows nearly as bad or as long as Flair's. We can argue that peak matters most. We can even argue that peak is all that matters. But we can't argue peak matters most and output matters most. We can't argue that peak is all that matters and output is all that matters. To my mind Flair should not be defined by his dark years, but we can't ignore it and pretend they didn't happen, especially when other wrestlers who have gotten older haven't lost nearly as much. We hear a lot of talk about Terry Funk's second career, but that's a bonus, not part of his case. Right? Uh, I think it pretty obviously is part of his case. When are you setting the boundaries on his first career ending and second career beginning? If we say his first career ended upon his first retirement than there is zero argument for Funk as the GOAT based on the footage we have. I love him in AJPW but it's just not enough and what we have other than that is so small it doesn't even begin to build a case. If we argue that his second career began after he left WCW following the 89 run and became a freelancer of sorts I think it's extremely hard to make a case for him. He's got more meat to be sure and you could argue that he has absolute top tier ever babyface and heel runs at that point on tape. But it still feels thin relative to someone like a Kawada or Lawler (leaving Flair out of this for now). Without Funk's freelance run in the 90's/00's I think he's a marginal GOAT candidate. Others may disagree, but I think it's that stuff that really puts him into the discussion. I don't watch baseball, so I don't really get the analogy. But yes, you shift the paradigm, and you get different results. That's true for anything. But if we're in agreement that determining the GOAT is not a math problem, then why promote ratios and downplay simple number of good matches. Both are math problems. Counting matches is less involved and the lack of adjustment can lead to all sorts of weird results. I have no interest in building a ratio argument or doing the work for it, but I don't think there is any question that a ratio metric would tell us a lot more than just counting matches. Of course you'd still have to adjust for guys who got favorable programs and again no one is going to do that work. It wouldn't be perfect either. But in most cases a guy who had good matches 50% of the time out is someone I am going to rate higher than a guy who had good matches 20% of the time out, even if the guy sitting at 20% has fifty more good matches in his career (this of course is assuming a certain minimum floor of matches). In any event I'm not arguing for ratio as the metric. I'm just arguing that there are other ways of looking at the good/great match metric than getting out a piece of paper and scrawling down a list of matches you like. The point isn't that ratio is better. It's that it is perfectly legitimate. There is not. I will concede that much. But if this isn't the best way, I would like to see something presented that is better, with at least an attempt to find standards that can be applied universally. You aren't going to find it. There is no universal standard here and there can't be. It doesn't mean your choice to favor output is wrong, but I do think output divorced from a discussion of the ingredients is totally uninteresting and tells us absolutely nothing about why a wrestler is or isn't great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 . I think because Flair's style is to be the theatrical showman, it's easy to assume that he's a macro guy, but he's done all sorts of unique things during individual matches that have stuck in my mind. I do think there's a perception that "the little things" mean Billy Robinson cranking on someone's neck and positioning himself in such a way that a counter is not possible -- Flair's little things might be shouting abuse at Ricky Morton about his nose before rubbing his face in the mat, or it might be thrusting his pelvis at Precious, or it might be stopping in the middle of an offensive stretch to shout at a guy in row 3, or it might be flipping a switch and deciding it's time to decimate someone's knee. Flair's a "big" performer but that doesn't mean everything he does is macro. Some of the stuff might be loud or even unsubtle, but it's still micro structurally speaking, none of the things I've mentioned there are high spots or finishes. Flair at his best is an excellent micro wrestler which is part of the reason I think boiling his case down to output is cheating him. He does do those little things well often. Yes he has flaws and at times they are glaring even in otherwise good matches. But Flair was a good micro performer by and large and great at it during his peak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 I bet Will cooked and ate a whole pizza while reading that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 I bet Will cooked and ate a whole pizza while reading that. This rivals Musgrave's anti-Texan post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 The last few pages are great. That was a hell of a post, Dylan. I think we know where I fall here. I get the feeling that Loss is trying to find Truth, almost like PWO over the last few months has been part of a great experiment to come up with that GOAT, and really, what's interesting isn't the answer, isn't the destination, but the journey, and figuring out the why behind these great matches. I absolutely think that Great Matches are a factor. Even numerically, but it's just a factor. There doesn't have to be only one. We can come up with more inclusive ways. It can be a starting point, but even then, if we're trying to learn and understand and really gauge, then it makes sense to look at how wrestlers dealt with multiple things. Not just their great matches but all sorts of matches and situations. Personally,I think it's important to look at situations within situations. But that's me and I get that. I just don't think Great Matches have to be an end all. Why can't we look at that AND other things. Is it harder to quantify? Sure, but wrestling is an art form. Also, I love the microscope. Love it. I'm not always up to watching a bunch of matches of one guy in a row, but I Can watch a Murdoch match tomorrow, a Funk match the next day, a Regal match the next, and some random thing from PR the next, and there's room to discuss all of them and leave them out there for the next person who watches that match to comment on. I'm excited about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 I need a little time to respond. My takeaway from that response is that I've done a pretty poor job of articulating my point. I'll come back to it later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exposer Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 To get in this conversation, in the last month I've watched nearly every single Rey match from 2002 WWE and from Jan to Aug 2003. He's had probably a dozen great matches, several very good matches, and nothing has been short of decent. More importantly, 2002-2003 Rey doesn't come close to as good as 2005-2006 or 2009-2011 Rey. Plus, there's stuff from 04, 07 and 08 I need to see for the first time or re-explore. So yeah, I think Rey is a pretty good candidate for greatest television worker of all time and might have the highest volume of stuff within a given peak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 Jaguar Yokota has a significant career output both from her original run and from her comeback. Fiera also has stuff that will fill up one of Will's sets. There wouldn't be a lot of matches where he was the lead guy and I don't think there are too many of his singles matches out of circulation, but he had a long run and much of it is buried in Lynch's Mexico list. The point being that sometimes people's examples of low output workers haven't been exhaustively examined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 Here is the simplest way I know how to present what I'm saying. I had a long post written out with responses to each individual point, but it was painful. In the future, I plan on avoiding these types of GOAT standard/who-is-better conversations. It frustrates me because while I do realize these things are largely subjective, I still think we can bring objective factors into the conversation. But I seem to be the only one who thinks about it that way, and despite how much time I seem to spend on it lately, it's not one of my favorite topics. In the future, I will talk less about wrestlers and more about matches. It's what I care more about anyway. I would rather debate which matches are better and GOAT matches anytime, so that will be what I focus on. In the meantime, I just want to clarify a few things: (1) I care about prime. Not before and after. I have been consistent in that. The 1990 feud with Luger caught Flair at the tail end of his glory days. It was the last great feud he had. Flair started off 1990 as good as he ever was. After dropping the title to Sting, he was never quite the same again in the ring. That was in July. I don't argue for him from 1982-1990 because he had a drop-off halfway through 1990, and it's easier to look at complete years where he's one of the elite. I think Ric Flair was the best wrestler in the world for the first half of 1990. For the second half, I'm not convinced that he hits the top ten. (2) I care about the number of good matches. I have been consistent in that. I realize that some wrestlers luck into runs where they're working with someone great who can make them look better than they really are. I wasn't considering that part of this conversation because wrestlers who were carried aren't usually talked about in GOAT terms anyway. Where I've failed is in repeatedly saying things are "irrelevant" or "don't matter" that are relevant and do matter. That's my fault and something I wish I hadn't said. I cop to that. What I should have said is that typically, by the time a wrestler starts getting talked about in Greatest Of All Time terms, they've survived quite a bit of scrutiny. We know that they are great at the details, because they've already been pointed out. That's been established. I think looking at the number of good matches a wrestler had during their peak, and the time span in which they happened, is the best way to compare elite wrestlers to each other. It is not the best way to compare the Ultimate Warrior and Brad Armstrong because neither is considered a GOAT pick. To compare random wrestlers to either, I do think looking at the details of their act should absolutely be part of the conversation. I was arguing for expediency that by the time a wrestler is considered a GOAT candidates, the gap isn't terribly huge between them and other GOAT candidates. So I think looking at the number of good matches is the best way I know of to break the tie. That doesn't mean he with the highest number automatically wins. It does mean that when you look at the whole of the peak run and compare it to the whole of the peak run of the other guy, the guy whose peak looks better is the guy who is better. (3) I care about the number of good matches during a wrestler's prime. This is a combination of points #1 and #2. Ric Flair had matches that would be in my top 100 of the year every year from 1992-1995. But he wasn't consistently putting out stuff that was at the level of the best wrestlers in the world during that time frame, and there are disappointing performances mixed in too. I don't want to say there aren't disappointing Flair matches in the 80s, but I'm not sure I could count them on two hands without having fingers left over. So the post-prime isn't part of his case when I talk about him. I don't even factor it in. It's great that Funk had a second career. During Funk's second career, he wasn't at the level of the AJ 4, El Dandy, Santo, Casas, Liger, Hokuto or Kong. If he was, it would matter a lot to me. Hansen was at that level and it does matter to me. So how can Funk be considered as best of all time -- with that specifically being cited as a reason -- when he wasn't even best of his time? How is that run a case for him when he was just one of a few dozen good wrestlers who had some good matches throughout the decade? Was Funk in the 90s even clearly better than El Samurai? Dean Malenko? Brian Pillman? Owen Hart? Hayabusa? I don't care what someone does after their prime, at least in the context of a GOAT debate. I can enjoy the matches, and it's a nice bonus, but it's not something I would bring up in a GOAT argument unless they were still among the very best wrestlers in the world long after their best days were over. I have never, not even once, cited the Flair/Steamboat feud in '94, Flair/Vader at Starrcade '93 or the Flair/Tenryu matches in '92 as part of why I consider him the best ever, even though I think all of those matches are outstanding. The reason for that is that I think the prime is the best battleground, because when I think of Ric Flair, I don't think of a pathetic old man limping through his 80s routine to mixed results. I think of the actual 80s routine. (4) My point in mentioning Jaguar Yokota wasn't even specifically to single her out. It was just to point out that I think there's too much focus in GOAT debates on our personal preferences. I know that sounds like a "Duh!" statement, because if we didn't focus on that, what would we focus on? But what I mean by that is that "I'd rather watch this wrestler" is not the same as "This wrestler is clearly better." There's not a big push from people on this board for Lou Thesz or The Destroyer, if you want to switch out the names. Liger doesn't even get talked about much anymore. But that's a reflection of us, not a reflection of the wrestlers themselves. It seems like sometimes, we are so focused on our favorites when having GOAT debates that we aren't fair to those who deserve to be in the conversation despite not being a flavor du jour. I am as guilty of that as anyone. (5) I think you'll find a lot of 90s trios matches from AAA where Rey is heavily featured to be disappointing, if you're going to look at his entire career. If you're going to chart his entire career, which it sounds like you're interested in doing, I hope you look closely at his AAA matches instead of just assuming he was great in Mexico. It's assumed that he's a guy who has been great for 20 years, but I don't think he was consistently great until he came to WWE. He had lots of great matches before that, and lots of disappointing ones too. I would actually say the same for Eddy Guerrero, who has plenty of disappointing matches during his physical prime. We don't have as much footage, but I'm sure the same rings true of Flair in the 70s. Is Rey's 2000s a decent comparison to Flair's 1980s? If so (even if not), that's interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 Here is the simplest way I know how to present what I'm saying. I had a long post written out with responses to each individual point, but it was painful. In the future, I plan on avoiding these types of GOAT standard/who-is-better conversations. It frustrates me because while I do realize these things are largely subjective, I still think we can bring objective factors into the conversation. But I seem to be the only one who thinks about it that way, and despite how much time I seem to spend on it lately, it's not one of my favorite topics. In the future, I will talk less about wrestlers and more about matches. It's what I care more about anyway. I would rather debate which matches are better and GOAT matches anytime, so that will be what I focus on. In the meantime, I just want to clarify a few things: (1) I care about prime. Not before and after. I have been consistent in that. The 1990 feud with Luger caught Flair at the tail end of his glory days. It was the last great feud he had. Flair started off 1990 as good as he ever was. After dropping the title to Sting, he was never quite the same again in the ring. That was in July. I don't argue for him from 1982-1990 because he had a drop-off halfway through 1990, and it's easier to look at complete years where he's one of the elite. I think Ric Flair was the best wrestler in the world for the first half of 1990. For the second half, I'm not convinced that he hits the top ten. (2) I care about the number of good matches. I have been consistent in that. I realize that some wrestlers luck into runs where they're working with someone great who can make them look better than they really are. I wasn't considering that part of this conversation because wrestlers who were carried aren't usually talked about in GOAT terms anyway. Where I've failed is in repeatedly saying things are "irrelevant" or "don't matter" that are relevant and do matter. That's my fault and something I wish I hadn't said. I cop to that. What I should have said is that typically, by the time a wrestler starts getting talked about in Greatest Of All Time terms, they've survived quite a bit of scrutiny. We know that they are great at the details, because they've already been pointed out. That's been established. I think looking at the number of good matches a wrestler had during their peak, and the time span in which they happened, is the best way to compare elite wrestlers to each other. It is not the best way to compare the Ultimate Warrior and Brad Armstrong because neither is considered a GOAT pick. To compare random wrestlers to either, I do think looking at the details of their act should absolutely be part of the conversation. I was arguing for expediency that by the time a wrestler is considered a GOAT candidates, the gap isn't terribly huge between them and other GOAT candidates. So I think looking at the number of good matches is the best way I know of to break the tie. That doesn't mean he with the highest number automatically wins. It does mean that when you look at the whole of the peak run and compare it to the whole of the peak run of the other guy, the guy who's peak looks better is the guy who is better. This clarifies a lot. I'm still not sure I agree with it, but it makes me understand your position more. (3) I care about the number of good matches during a wrestler's prime. This is a combination of points #1 and #2. Ric Flair had matches that would be in my top 100 of the year every year from 1992-1995. But he wasn't consistently putting out stuff that was at the level of the best wrestlers in the world during that time frame, and there are disappointing performances mixed in too. I don't want to say there aren't disappointing Flair matches in the 80s, but I'm not sure I could count them on two hands without having fingers left over. So the post-prime isn't part of his case when I talk about him. I don't even factor it in. It's great that Funk had a second career. During Funk's second career, he wasn't at the level of the AJ 4, El Dandy, Santo, Casas, Liger, Hokuto or Kong. If he was, it would matter a lot to me. Hansen was at that level and it does matter to me. So how can Funk be considered as best of all time -- with that specifically being cited as a reason -- when he wasn't even best of his time? Because it's not the only reason and because we have a fundamental disagreement about whether or not post-prime (or pre-prime I assume as well) work has any meaning at all. Your position is that at best it's a "bonus" and at worst it is totally irrelevant to a GOAT debate. I don't agree with that at all. To me if a guy who has broken down or lost something can reinvent himself, still stay relevant and still have lots of good/great matches after the point when he was his sharpest that is a clear and obvious plus. If he can do this consistently it is a huge plus. To take one year I like Funk in 94 a lot. Is he top five in the world? No. Top ten? Probably not. Top twenty? I'd say yes and that is a huge plus for someone at that stage of their career. It's not something you build a GOAT case around, but it seems silly to discard it just because it occurred after his prime. If all I cared about was prime Buddy Rose is one and El Dandy's two. Funk would probably make my top ten under such a metric. In all probability we have virtually no prime Bockwinkel - do we disregard his career entirely? I get the argument that prime matters most and basically agree with it. But we just have a massive disagreement about work outside of someone's prime. Taking this a bit further, I don't really think Flair was at the level of Buddy Rose in 83 if I'm being 100 percent honest. I think Flair is great during that period and the gap isn't massive, but it takes me about a tenth of a second to come to the conclusion that I prefer Rose. I think Fujinami and Choshu are better that year too. In all honesty I think Bockwinkel and Blackwell had better years than Flair that year offhand. I think Lawler was better that year. Is he really better than Sarge or Steamboat that year? I can't think of the matches to support the argument offhand. If we had more footage I'm confident the consensus would be that Sangre Chicana was better that year. It's entirely possible if I watched the full range of stuff that's out there for 83 Flair wouldn't make my top ten for the year. Even at this moment he'd have zero chance at my top five and I don't really think he's on the level of people who I would have above him. Does that mean I should discount that year in any GOAT argument for him? How is that run a case for him when he was just one of a few dozen good wrestlers who had some good matches throughout the decade? Was Funk in the 90s even clearly better than El Samurai? Dean Malenko? Brian Pillman? Owen Hart? Hayabusa? I don't care what someone does after their prime, at least in the context of a GOAT debate. Because it's not his entire case, it's a piece of his case and not a particularly huge one. I also disagree with the tone of the first sentence. He had good matches more often than not, against a wide variety of opponents, in a wide variety of settings in the 90's. He wasn't Lanny Poffo. I can enjoy the matches, and it's a nice bonus, but it's not something I would bring up in a GOAT argument unless they were still among the very best wrestlers in the world long after their best days were over. I have never, not even once, cited the Flair/Steamboat feud in '94, Flair/Vader at Starrcade '93 or the Flair/Tenryu matches in '92 as part of why I consider him the best ever, even though I think all of those matches are outstanding. The reason for that is that I think the prime is the best battleground, because when I think of Ric Flair, I don't think of a pathetic old man limping through his 80s routine to mixed results. I think of the actual 80s routine. This is all great and dandy for Flair, because there were huge periods where he was a pathetic old man limping through his 80's routine to mixed results. There is Terry Funk I don't like (very little of it - far less than Flair) and Jerry Lawler I don't like and Genchiro Tenryu I don't like. But by and large, even years past their primes these are guys that could and did have good matches more often than not. Jerry Lawler was arguably top ten in the world a couple of years ago. Tenryu was one of the best guys on earth at points in the 00's. Were they in their primes? No way. Did they adapt well enough to see be great wrestlers with the tools they had in the settings they were working in? Absolutely. If someone wants to argue that prime is all that matters in a GOAT debate that is fine and it's a viewpoint I've encountered many times in the past. But it's a viewpoint I have an extreme disagreement with and that's not going to change any time soon. (4) My point in mentioning Jaguar Yokota wasn't even specifically to single her out. It was just to point out that I think there's too much focus in GOAT debates on our personal preferences. I know that sounds like a "Duh!" statement, because if we didn't focus on that, what would we focus on? But what I mean by that is that "I'd rather watch this wrestler" is not the same as "This wrestler is clearly better." There's not a big push from people on this board for Lou Thesz or The Destroyer, if you want to switch out the names. Liger doesn't even get talked about much anymore. But that's a reflection of us, not a reflection of the wrestlers themselves. It seems like sometimes, we are so focused on our favorites when having GOAT debates that we aren't fair to those who deserve to be in the conversation despite not being a flavor du jour. I am as guilty of that as anyone. If I was interested solely in discussing wrestlers I enjoy watching a lot at the expense of those I thought were better every thread would be about Bobby Bass and J.T. Smith. The reason people discuss things that are new to them more is because they are new to them. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. If someone feels like somebody is overpimping someone because they are a "new" find they can call them out on it. Hopefully that discussion won't take the shape of "TRENDZ!' but if we are being honest that's likely to be the direction a debate like that would go in which is why I generally don't like it. And yes I'm fully aware that someone could make the same complaint about my criticism of modern NJPW fetishism, but at least I bother to watch the stuff I'm calling overrated. (5) I think you'll find a lot of 90s trios matches from AAA where Rey is heavily featured to be disappointing, if you're going to look at his entire career. If you're going to chart his entire career, which it sounds like you're interested in doing, I hope you look closely at his AAA matches instead of just assuming he was great in Mexico. It's assumed that he's a guy who has been great for 20 years, but I don't think he was consistently great until he came to WWE. He had lots of great matches before that, and lots of disappointing ones too. I would actually say the same for Eddy Guerrero, who has plenty of disappointing matches during his physical prime. We don't have as much footage, but I'm sure the same rings true of Flair in the 70s. Is Rey's 2000s a decent comparison to Flair's 1980s? If so (even if not), that's interesting. I have seen some AAA Rey, not a ton, but I would never assume he was great in Mexico. I have been arguing that Rey's prime was in the WWE for years now, probably as long or longer than anyone I know actually. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there was a lot of disappointing AAA Rey. I like WCW era Rey a good bit, but I clearly think he's a peg down from WWE Rey though I think it's impressive how differently he worked both places. Having said that based on what I've seen Rey was certainly a very good wrestler by 95. He wasn't good in 2000 WCW but no one was and he's had big periods with injuries. But he's appeared on tv a lot over the years. I've watched a lot of Flair over the years, but I don't remember Flair having the depth of quality tv matches Rey does. Maybe it's just that I haven't watched the tv in years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 26, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 To be fair to Flair, almost all of his TV featured matches in the 80s were pretty awesome. The difference is that he wasn't featured on TV a lot because he was the champion you had to pay to see. I think Flair's best TV work was the early 90s when he would pop up quite often on the B-shows or random Saturday Night and have good to great matches nearly every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 On the Bigelow match it's important to remember that Bigelow is one of the most overrated wrestlers in history. The narrative of him being a "great" big man is so played out at this point it's comical. I've seen a lot of Bigelow over the years and while there is no question he was pretty good and a good athlete he usually under performs. I like the Starrcade match with Barry, but it's not outstanding. I certainly don't think Bigelow is great but certainly capable and that still doesn't excuse Barry from encouraging a positive reaction to himself as a heel. I haven't watched the match in some time and that may be a valid point. Of course if encouraging a positive reaction to himself as a heel is a serious criticism it's time to start shitting on Flair hard. I didn't want to respond to this in the Windham thread and turn every thread under the microscope into a Flair analysis. What I wanted was if Dylan could expand upon this statement. Do you consider Flair calling people fat boys and talking about having sex as part of this encouraging or is there something else I am missing. I don't want to overblow Windham doing that in a match because I fully understand it is a nitpick on my part as something that really harked on me and took me out of that particular match. I could have ignored the same thing happening many times before. No doubt NWA had some male fans that would have cheered Flair on when he said stuff like that but I don't criticize that against Flair because he is still being a "dick". Same reason even though Jerry Lawler making fun of the USWA crowd had everyone laughing and people begging to be picked on I give a pass to that because Jerry was acting like a heel making fun of the fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 I think it's pretty clear if you watch enough of Flair in the WTBS studio that he was going for validation and playing himself as the coolest guy in the room for cheers. I don't fault him for that because it fits. I also so Flair live dozens of times. Even as a heel there were times he was clearly playing to the crowd for approval. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.