Ric Flair

[Phil Schneider]

Tommy Gilbert really intrigues me

[Boss Rock]

Looking at that pace working championship matches, it's amazing his body didn't give out sooner. I guess landing on his shoulder added years to his career.

[MoS]

 

[soup23]

February 83 is a good month for Flair with what we have on tape. No classics or even great matches but he works three distinctively different world title matches in three promotions. 
 

World Class vs Gordy has him as defacto face due to heat on Freebirds. Flair plays this off well as being ancillary in the whole feud. He has a demeanor of seeing there is a lot of shit going on and not wanting get directly involved.

 

St. Louis vs Brody is a Ric vs bigger opponent template match but it goes an hour and Ric finds interesting ways to ground Brody and keep the match interesting. 
 

Florida vs Scott McGhee is most impressive. A no name challenger in the biggest match of his life. Ric plays it slow just looking for an opening and not going into deep waters against the inferior opponent. This match has no leg work by Flair and sure enough once Scott wipes out on a big charge in the corner, Ric suplexes him and wins clean. 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

It's been four years since the last post in this thread, and I still haven't seen a good argument for why Flair shouldn't be considered Top 5 of all time at worst. One of the most complete packages in wrestling history, and has remained in high esteem despite having his career picked apart and scrutinized more closely than nearly anyone else in contention. 

 

[Ricky Jackson]

I think the 2036 vote (if such a thing happens) will see Ric back in the mix for a top spot, but 2026 feels like a "he finished 1st last time, so not too enthusiastic about pimping him this time" year (plus I think too much Nature Boy Behaving Badly in the media over the last decade has dented his reputation a bit)

[Owen Edwards]

Top 5 comfortably. I don't believe in making cases against, though.

[DMJ]

TheBean commented in the Non-Thread Worthy thread that he wouldn't be surprised if Flair fell out of the top 10.

I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I don't think he'll be number one.

Fair (to Flair) or not, I do think there is a threshold for how great one can be professionally at their peak and how much out-of-ring antics/post-peak performance can tarnish a legacy. Flair has both things working against him. Since 2016, any remaining "That's just Ric being Ric" goodwill has been thoroughly eroded away from the discourse about him and, to the second point, we also now have a wrestling landscape where guys 45+ are still putting on great matches. Flair's resume of good matches from roughly 96' to his retirement is pretty thin.

Yes, there's better training now, wrestlers work considerably less, sports medicine has improved a ton in the past 20 years...but I think it can also be fairly said that Ric Flair was not a guy that was particularly great at adapting as he aged (and certainly not as well, say, AJ Styles or Rey Mysterio, who are both as old as Flair was in the latter half of the 90s, have plenty of bumps on their bump card, and routinely put on very good TV matches when called upon). Chris Jericho is 55 and for all the hate he gets, it's much easier to pull fun, quality matches from his past 5 years than it is to pull them from Ric's last 10. CM Punk is 47. Claudio is 45. 

I'm certainly not arguing that any of these wrestlers are better than Ric at their peak (though I think Styles and Mysterio will land in my top 12), but I do think these factors might play into how he ranks this year. Simply put, Flair being great for 10-15 years used to be much more impressive than it is now because we have guys like AJ, Rey, Punk, Jericho, La Parka, and probably a whole slew of Japanese and lucha wrestlers I don't even know about that have great matches spanning twice as long. 

[TheBean]

I think your points with Rey, AJ Styles etc al. combined with Ricky Jackson's above are what leads me to believe he might be out of the top 10. It all depends on who's voting (duh!) but there could be a lot of people that don't like "non WWF 80's wrestling" and could be bounced out. I think the 2016 results had that X factor so I'm keeping that in the back of my mind.

If I just think about PWO folks and similarly minded people then I think you're 100% right. If there's no anti-80's/old school wrestling or other surprise then I'm thinking: #1 Funk, #2 Hansen, #3 Danielson, #4 Flair, #5 Hijo del Santo, Rey Misterio Jr, Misawa/Kobashi...someone around the top 5 last time.

[Tetsujin]

While I also believe he will fall, I can only see Danielson, Funk, and the Pillars (sans Taue) ranking higher than Flair this time.

[TheBean]

Yeah I could see Misawa & Kobashi ranking higher this time. I feel like 90's guys are going to edge out 80's guys just from a "who's participating" perspective too. I think that goes into the mix with Flair a very small amount. Probably the smallest since he stayed on TV in the 90's, 2000's and beyond where a lot of "80's" workers were wrapping up or already done. That was my view regarding Steamboat being done in 1994 in the other thread. 

Hansen, who might be on the bubble for top 5 in your view is an interesting case.  I think his position this time may depend on how people view his pre-Kings Road/4 Pillars work in AJPW, not to mention his NJPW, Puerto Rico, AWA etc. stuff. I think you have a point there.

[highflyflow]

If I was a betting man, I’d put money on Danielson, Funk, Hansen, Tenryu and Kobashi to all finish above Flair. After that, though, is anyone’s guess.

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

On 1/10/2026 at 4:45 AM, DMJ said:

Fair (to Flair) or not, I do think there is a threshold for how great one can be professionally at their peak and how much out-of-ring antics/post-peak performance can tarnish a legacy.

I mean if anyone is trying to argue this, they can safely be ignored as they are clearly a moron. Lest this entire exercise become some sort of competition of who can be the biggest moral scold. 

Quote

Flair has both things working against him. Since 2016, any remaining "That's just Ric being Ric" goodwill has been thoroughly eroded away from the discourse about him and, to the second point, we also now have a wrestling landscape where guys 45+ are still putting on great matches. Flair's resume of good matches from roughly 96' to his retirement is pretty thin.

This remains an exception, not the rule. There are plenty of 45+ wrestlers getting around on the indies who are putting on terrible matches. 

Quote

Yes, there's better training now, wrestlers work considerably less, sports medicine has improved a ton in the past 20 years...but I think it can also be fairly said that Ric Flair was not a guy that was particularly great at adapting as he aged

Yes, you seem to have outlined the exact reasons why it is much easier to wrestle well into your 40s today than it was in the 80s and 90s. The work schedule alone would have literally, not figuratively, but literally killed several more wrestlers if it was still as strenuous today. 

Ric Flair should not lose points for the shifting economics of the business enabling a healthier work environment today.

Quote

(and certainly not as well, say, AJ Styles or Rey Mysterio, who are both as old as Flair was in the latter half of the 90s, have plenty of bumps on their bump card, and routinely put on very good TV matches when called upon). Chris Jericho is 55 and for all the hate he gets, it's much easier to pull fun, quality matches from his past 5 years than it is to pull them from Ric's last 10. CM Punk is 47. Claudio is 45. 
 

All of those wrestlers still have fewer bumps on their bump card than Flair at their age. They also have one fewer plane crash. CM Punk? Are you kidding me? He left pro wrestling for seven years! 

I note, Flairs best 10 matches also easily clear the best 10 matches of everyone you mentioned. He was simply never asked to put on very good TV matches for much of his peak, because that was not the business model. 

Quote

I'm certainly not arguing that any of these wrestlers are better than Ric at their peak (though I think Styles and Mysterio will land in my top 12), but I do think these factors might play into how he ranks this year. Simply put, Flair being great for 10-15 years used to be much more impressive than it is now because we have guys like AJ, Rey, Punk, Jericho, La Parka, and probably a whole slew of Japanese and lucha wrestlers I don't even know about that have great matches spanning twice as long. 

You didn't mention the obvious point, which is that even when Flair was able to still go, he was de-emphasised in booking and never put in a position to have long, good matches like older wrestlers are today. He was already considered over the hill by the early 90s (Spartacus lmao), just a couple years removed from putting on what are considered possibly the greatest matches ever. That would simply never happen in today's world, and guys like AJ/Rey benefit greatly from it. Kenny Omega is a shell of his former self, and is still treated and booked like the man who was wrestling Okada and Naito in 2017.

Flair, when given the chance, could still produce into his late 40s, and was clearly put in a support role not designed to show him off as a great wrestler by the time he returned to WWE. 

[TheBean]

Is there a consensus of when Flair's great matches start and when they end? 

I think to be even considered top 10, a wrestler should have a 20 year span of consistently great matches*. If we can agree that Flair has 20 years of consistently great matches then, any crap matches/years afterwards can be "excused" because it is a business/job after all. That applies to everyone. 

BUT I don't think Flair's longevity for the sake on not wanting to retire should be a positive either. If he's got 20 years of quality and 15 years of crap then, I think those 15 years should be used against him when looking at other wrestlers with 20 years of quality but retired, went to the mid card etc.. (Using 15 years as an example). Again that applies to everyone.

*consistently great matches, I mean NOT just a great PPV match one year. At least great matches every PPV, big show, tour, very good TV matches etc. Perhaps a classic per year etc.

7 hours ago, Mantaur Rodeo Clown said:

when Flair was able to still go, he was de-emphasised in booking and never put in a position to have long, good matches like older wrestlers are today. He was already considered over the hill by the early 90s (Spartacus lmao), just a couple years removed from putting on what are considered possibly the greatest matches ever. That would simply never happen in today's world, and guys like AJ/Rey benefit greatly from it

I don't believe he was de-emphasized or had a quality drop in the early 90's. Having watched a bunch of WCW 1994 last year, Flair was given opportunities and definitely used them. He had a couple fantastic matches with Steamboat, one being an hour or so. He had a great series with Regal although intentionally chopped up into multiple matches (Marquis Queensbury matches). And he was working Hogan in PPV main events. So I think AJ & Rey don't benefit more than Ric (or Hogan for that matter) did. They just happen to have longevity & consistency of quality like Flair. I mention '94 because this might be the last year where he has the quality wrestling & opponents, and one could argue '74-94 are his 20 yrs. If this is the year/period when you were thinking when saying "early 90's" then sorry! 🙂

Also, not sure if this was your intention so apologies if it's nitpicking but long matches don't necessarily equal good matches. I want to but won't hold Flair Broadway matches against him at this point (same with Danielson, if not draws then long matches) while physically impressive, it didn't always yield a better match. I mention those two because the long matches became their trademarks.

[highflyflow]

I really just have never bought the idea that Flair's had "15 years of crap" or any kind of detracting statement in regards to the twilight years of his active career; the idea that his WWE run is considered a negative for him, and a strong negative at that, is baffling to me, because I consider him to be a reliably solid member of the Ruthless Aggression era and honestly one of the better wrestlers on the roster period. I guess if you compared Flair in 2005 to Flair in 1985 then he doesn't stack up in comparison but...why would you do that? Flair at 56 is not gonna look the same as Flair at 36. I still think he had matches ranging from solid to genuinely great with the likes of Eddie Guerrero, Randy Orton, Chris Benoit, Shawn Michaels, Big Show, Mick Foley, and Triple H.

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

3 hours ago, highflyflow said:

I really just have never bought the idea that Flair's had "15 years of crap" or any kind of detracting statement in regards to the twilight years of his active career; the idea that his WWE run is considered a negative for him, and a strong negative at that, is baffling to me, because I consider him to be a reliably solid member of the Ruthless Aggression era and honestly one of the better wrestlers on the roster period. I guess if you compared Flair in 2005 to Flair in 1985 then he doesn't stack up in comparison but...why would you do that? Flair at 56 is not gonna look the same as Flair at 36. I still think he had matches ranging from solid to genuinely great with the likes of Eddie Guerrero, Randy Orton, Chris Benoit, Shawn Michaels, Big Show, Mick Foley, and Triple H.

If you take him on his own merits in 2005 as a different wrestler rather than a guy who is 30 per cent of what he used to be in 1989, he's perfectly entertaining. 

There's been a bit of talk that Flair didn't adapt his style to modern sensibilities, but I think he did what he could. The little hardcore phase he had in 2006 for instance. He leaned into his "dirtiest player in the game" far more, as he couldn't trade headlocks and arm drags for 55 minutes anymore. 

And even at 56, with all the wear and tear on his body, he can still go out there and work at Kurt Angle's pace, which is notoriously go-go-go.

Ric Flair vs Kurt Angle - WWE RAW - June 27, 2005

Is he gassed at the end of it? Of course. But the crowd is still red hot for him, and lose their minds for a VERTICAL SUPLEX IN 2005. Honestly, if you let him wrestle someone who actually worked a hold now and then to let Flair breathe, it probably would have been even better.

 

4 hours ago, TheBean said:

I don't believe he was de-emphasized or had a quality drop in the early 90's. Having watched a bunch of WCW 1994 last year, Flair was given opportunities and definitely used them. He had a couple fantastic matches with Steamboat, one being an hour or so. He had a great series with Regal although intentionally chopped up into multiple matches (Marquis Queensbury matches). And he was working Hogan in PPV main events. So I think AJ & Rey don't benefit more than Ric (or Hogan for that matter) did. They just happen to have longevity & consistency of quality like Flair. I mention '94 because this might be the last year where he has the quality wrestling & opponents, and one could argue '74-94 are his 20 yrs. If this is the year/period when you were thinking when saying "early 90's" then sorry! 🙂

Yes, sorry for not making myself clear. I merely picked the early 90s to show that some promoters (Jim Herd) clearly thought he was over the hill. But he still had great matches (Vader, Steamboat, Savage) in the early 90s. His de-emphasis came post-nWo, which makes perfect business sense, but makes it more difficult for his GWE case. 

The lack of TV time (3 hours initially to modern day WWE's approximately 186 hours of weekly content) means he was naturally going to be pushed into the background. But between a turn away from in-action (more run-ins! more!) and angles that did no one any favours (like getting committed to an insane asylum), I don't think we can lay the blame at Flair's feet and say it was because he couldn't go anymore. He says himself his confidence was shot by 2001, wrestling in a T-shirt on the final Nitro out of shame.

I don't think that it's unique to Flair either. I don't think late 90s WCW is used to promote Bret Hart's case, or Curt Hennig's case, or Macho Man's case. 

[El McKell]

14 hours ago, TheBean said:

I think to be even considered top 10, a wrestler should have a 20 year span of consistently great matches*. I

*consistently great matches, I mean NOT just a great PPV match one year. At least great matches every PPV, big show, tour, very good TV matches etc. Perhaps a classic per year etc.

 

I'd really like to discuss this point because I don't believe there are 10 wrestlers who clear this bar for me. Certainly no Kobashi or Misawa for the top 10 anyway.

You say in your post that we can give Flair 1974-1994, but I don't think based on the footage we have that we can say Flair had more than 1 great match in the 1970s. I think based your criteria we'd have to start Flair at '81 at the earliest.

Rey Mysterio Jr has been given as great example of longevity in this thread and I think even if I give a generous definition of great match, and say it doesn't have to be a great match at every single big time show. I'm getting only 19 years for Rey Mysterio Jr. Those being 1994-1998, 2002-2007, 2009-2011, 2016-2019 & 2022. If I was strictly enforcing what you actually said he wouldn't even get to that number. 

[highflyflow]

2 hours ago, El McKell said:

I'd really like to discuss this point because I don't believe there are 10 wrestlers who clear this bar for me. Certainly no Kobashi or Misawa for the top 10 anyway.

Yeah I was gonna say the same thing but didn’t really feel like fleshing out an argument. I think if you widen the scope to maybe 15 years it’s a much more representative sample size; perhaps even 10 years, with the obvious capacity for greatness afterwards (Misawa would benefit from this).

[TheBean]

As far as the 20 year thing, that would be the criteria that I would be using but no way does anyone else need to use it. 🙂 I think the consistently great matches can be hashed out a bit more by saying: I wouldn't say someone who had one classic, and a load of average matches or stinkers every year for 20 years should be in the same boat as someone who is putting on great & very good matches as well as classics within that time span.  

For instance someone like Giant Baba. From '69-89, one could argue he had a classic match in there every year (admittedly tags & 6 mans as time went on)...but the majority of folks would agree that he had a ton of crap too (more crap that classics). Whereas Tenryu from 1984-2004+, one could argue he had a classic match every year in addition to a ton of very good & great matches. I'm using Baba as an extreme example for effect. It's about what could be argued reasonably & be convincing. I don't think anyone could do that with Baba though. Also that's to limit part time or once a year wrestling like WWE would do with guys like Undertaker, Rock, Brock etc. Essentially you've got to be part of a roster or working a schedule.

Regarding Misawa, I'd argue he's got 20 years. I'd probably say 1985-2005 would work for me. His stuff versus Kobayashi in 1985 and then I know folks aren't unanimous on his Kawada dome match in 2005 but I would say that as a classic from my old notes. Kobashi is outside that bubble since his injuries and illness sidelined him in NOAH. One could argue Akiyama however 1993-2013 for instance. Arguments for Hansen '80-'00 could be made...although those last couple years could be tough. I think Rey Jr, Danielson, AJ 20 year arguments can be made this time that maybe couldn't be made last time. Ultimately the time span is a strong guide more than a rule. I considered 15 as a start as there's a shit ton of wrestlers that had a great 10 year span. 15 years is a good spot for top 25 but 20 years seems to be the max. And when you start actually looking at folks with those kind of spans, it's many the same wrestlers that were in the Top 10 of 2016 or at least got votes. 20 years isn't the rule but 15-20 years of high quality seemed to be the prevailing trend. 

Regarding Flair, I'm legitimately asking others what their views are regarding these times, not rhetorically. I'm not arguing '74-94 nor saying he had 15 years of crap.  I'm actually curious because I know his 80's is golden and his early 90's holds up too. Also thanks for the additional info Mantaur Rodeo Clown, that makes sense 🙂 But when does Flair become like a "Giant Baba?" When does his output become sporadic in terms of quality? Or again, what year do people say, " this is when Flair became one of the best? " 1981-2001 for instance, is that a reasonable 20 year period? Or can we give him a "bridge" over the last few years of WCW and say he came back into form for a few years in WWE?

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

15 hours ago, TheBean said:

But when does Flair become like a "Giant Baba?" When does his output become sporadic in terms of quality? Or again, what year do people say, " this is when Flair became one of the best? " 1981-2001 for instance, is that a reasonable 20 year period? Or can we give him a "bridge" over the last few years of WCW and say he came back into form for a few years in WWE?

I think the main point of contention is that not everyone will be using your criteria of 20 year period. It's just a very long period of time for a wrestler to be consistently GREAT.

There are also the logistics of it. It means anyone that wasn't already wrestling at a high level by 2005/6 is now invalidated from being a top 10 wrestler. And if someone started wrestling in the late 60s/early 70s, there simply won't be enough footage to confirm their case. I'm all for the longevity argument and do think it holds a lot of water. But I think you have to make carve-outs for wrestlers that had 10 or 15 years that were beyond anything we have ever seen.

I'd say this is my argument with Flair. I'd probably say somewhere in the region of 1982 - 1995 is what builds his case. You might argue that's only 14 years, that other wrestlers have more years of great production. But I would argue that Ric Flair was SO ahead of everyone else in the world during some of those years, that it averages out. He was certainly wrestling more than most other people on the planet. I'm actually making myself a little bit nauseous by doing this, but I'm going to refer to Cagematch (I know, I know, forgive me). It currently has listings for 2,346 AJ Styles matches, a number which will increase. It has a listing for 5,025 Ric Flair matches. And that could be an underestimate. So what are we really talking about here when we talk about longevity? Because Flair shredded his bump card more than any human on earth. He may not have it across years, but he has it in pure volume.

During his golden period, no one could really touch his act, no one could touch his promos, I would trust no one more than Flair to get a good match out of a random jabroni at a Kansas spot show. 

And just to your last point about giving a wrestler a "bridge" during bad segments of their career, I think that is fine. I believe a great many people would argue for giving Keiji Mutoh a bridge into his bald headed revival period, or skipping American Badass Taker, or not holding Ringmaster Steve Austin too heavily against him. Everyone can have slumps.

[El McKell]

When we talk about giving someone a "bridge" I don't it makes any sense to include the years when they weren't very good in their favour. The way to measure longevity to me is simply count up how many years they were great (draw your own line for what counts as great); it shouldn't matter if those years are consecutive or not, they happened either way. 

Giving someone these bridge years gives someone a benefit for their great years being non-consecutive. If wrestler A and wrestler B both have 8 great years, but for wrestler A those years are 2000-2004 & 2008-2010, but for wrestler B it's continuous from 2000-2007, we should not say wrestler A had more longevity as a great because they both became great at the same time and wrestler A was great after wrestler B was in decline.