Ric Flair

[Shining Wiz]

Out of interest, is anyone going to bother to consider matches that Terry Funk has had aged almost 70 with his brother looking like the Cryptkeeper?Or does Flair only get this because he happened to be doing it on WWE TV?

I think there's a difference doing a match I front of 75 people at aVFW Hall and one in front of 12,000 people live and 3.5 million on tv. So, yeah, I'd say Flair's "post-prime" being so open that it gets considered more.

[Loss]

That's not fair. The guy you've said is your likely #1 made a big chunk of his case wrestling in front of smaller crowds. Does that mean that it matters less?

[Shining Wiz]

In a way, yes. I think I'd get a lot more push back on Bryan as a #1 option if he hadn't had the WWE run he has.

 

More specifically in terms of declines, it's a rare wrestler who does it in the ring for the biggest company going. I'm sure Sting wasn't so hot over 50 in TNA, but it's TNA so who saw it? Simple truth that higher profile positions are going to have a wider effect on opinions of wrestlers.

[JerryvonKramer]

I don't really recall guys bringing up the careers of guys like Ricky Morton or Greg Valentine working indies in the 00s and 10s. I didn't see anyone talk about Morton's run with the NWA World Junior Heavyweight Championship title from earlier this year. No one talked about botch-y late Vader. Even in recent discussion about Ron Garvin, no one talked about how he fell off a cliff in late 90-1.

 

It seems like since Flair is the man, he has to be subjected to extra special scrutiny.

 

How about someone instead trying to demonstrate that the other contenders can even go toe-to-toe with Flair's volume of great matches and performances before trying to pull down his career based on his old-man years?

 

It shouldn't be a disadvantage to be the frontrunner and "man to beat" in a thing like this, but at the moment it feels like it is for him.

[Shining Wiz]

Well, he's not the man to beat for me, and I'll probably consider everything you just mentioned in figuring who goes on my list and where.

[Matt D]

Personally, I'm going to absolutely look at Terry Funk when he gets old. I'm going to look at how he understood and modified his act for the Philadelphia Crowd or for the crazy stuff in Japan he was doing at the time and if he as able to continue to have good matches despite and because of that. I'm going to look to see what happened to him when he was in 00 indies and couldn't quite do some of the stuff that allowed for his post-prime career, and I think he had a match with Lawler a couple of years ago and I'm really interested to see what I can learn from that, pro or con.

 

Likewise Ricky Morton.

 

I don't get why people don't think there's something to learn in how a wrestler adapts to not being able to use the same tools that they once did. I just really don't get that. It's not about giving or taking away points, it's about understanding a wrestler and how well they understand their craft and thereby how well they potentially understood it when they were younger and how that understanding shaped every match of their career and how it developed or didn't develop over the years. How is this not interesting to you guys? When I watch wrestlers I look for clues in almost everything they do. How else am I going to figure out whether they're good or not. You look for patterns and how they handle different situations. I get that not everyone does it that way, but there's so much to learn about a wrestler in almost every match. That's what makes a project like this so great.

 

To be fair, when I'm done looking at everything, what I might come up with is that Flair not being able to adapt just paints a new and different light on how well he DID know how to the tools that he had when he was younger. I don't know yet. It's not about penalizing or giving points. It's about figuring things out.

[Dylan Waco]

Out of interest, is anyone going to bother to consider matches that Terry Funk has had aged almost 70 with his brother looking like the Cryptkeeper?

 

Or does Flair only get this because he happened to be doing it on WWE TV?

 

I watch every Funk match that shows up every year if that answers your question.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't really recall guys bringing up the careers of guys like Ricky Morton or Greg Valentine working indies in the 00s and 10s. I didn't see anyone talk about Morton's run with the NWA World Junior Heavyweight Championship title from earlier this year. No one talked about botch-y late Vader. Even in recent discussion about Ron Garvin, no one talked about how he fell off a cliff in late 90-1.

 

It seems like since Flair is the man, he has to be subjected to extra special scrutiny.

 

How about someone instead trying to demonstrate that the other contenders can even go toe-to-toe with Flair's volume of great matches and performances before trying to pull down his career based on his old-man years?

 

It shouldn't be a disadvantage to be the frontrunner and "man to beat" in a thing like this, but at the moment it feels like it is for him.

 

It seems to me like people just don't like it when Flair is criticized.

 

Over the course of this project we will see who can and who can't go "toe-to-toe" with Flair career v. career. I'll say flat out - not many are able to. But I do believe there are several people who are at least in the discussion with him. He's not an unquestionably, obvious one, who's peak lapped the field, or at least I've not been convinced by anyone who has tried to present that case.

 

Also worth noting that I have written and talked about post-prime Ricky Morton (including this year) and others as well because I watch that stuff. How much wrestling from the last fifteen years have you watched Parv?

[goodhelmet]

Parv... is anyone considering Valentine or Morton as their #1? If they were, those eras should be considered. We are looking at guys who had incredible comparable peaks in deciding who is #1. If somebody wants to go beyond the peak to decide #1 and #2 then that is a valid way of breaking a tie.

[Matt D]

That's it. A lot of the scrutiny is because these guys are the BEST of the BEST, but at the same time, I think there's a ton to learn from watching any wrestler at any point of his career especially in limited situations.

[Loss]

His point is that it keeps being mentioned that evaluating the post-peak is not an attempt to tear down Flair, but just an attempt to praise the guys who were great old guys, yet to this point, all the talk of how important it is to consider the post-peak in this thread and not the others. It's still early in the project, so hopefully that changes. I don't think Matt D, Dylan and Will are all arguing the exact same thing here, so I don't want to group you all together. But I've even criticized Lawler for post-peak things and I've been criticized for drawing conclusions about him based on watching footage from after the 80s. In the case of Dylan, I know you watch all the Funk footage and I don't expect Parv would have much of an issue admitting that he hasn't watched much wrestling from the past 15 years. I think his point is more that there aren't any posts about recent indy matches in the Funk, Valentine or Morton threads, nor has there been any critical talk that I've seen posted at PWO of how Terry Funk is doing these days. If that's coming (not just from you, from anyone), that's great news.

[dawho5]

It's like somebody said in the Meng/Haku thread. When you're working with an extremely limited set of tools it becomes very important how and where you use them. I can see that applying to any aging wrestler as their body starts to go on them and they have to learn to use an increasingly smaller toolset to meet the demands that come from "prime" versions of themselves.

[Matt D]

I know personally, I have a lot to watch, but I do plan on being consistent across the board (maybe too much so as Dylan said).

[Shining Wiz]

I did point out in the original question that this would apply to a great number of candidates, not just Flair.

[WingedEagle]

The problem is that we aren't penalizing Flair for getting old. We are rewarding Tenryu, Lawler etc having multiple great post prime performances after they got old. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Totally agree, nothing wrong with that and I think Tenryu deserves praise for doing what he did as he aged. Matt seemed to be expressly knocking Flair's career because of his later years, which is a whole other game.

[goodhelmet]

His point is that it keeps being mentioned that evaluating the post-peak is not an attempt to tear down Flair, but just an attempt to praise the guys who were great old guys, yet to this point, all the talk of how important it is to consider the post-peak in this thread and not the others. It's still early in the project, so hopefully that changes. I don't think Matt D, Dylan and Will are all arguing the exact same thing here, so I don't want to group you all together. But I've even criticized Lawler for post-peak things and I've been criticized for drawing conclusions about him based on watching footage from after the 80s. In the case of Dylan, I know you watch all the Funk footage and I don't expect Parv would have much of an issue admitting that he hasn't watched much wrestling from the past 15 years. I think his point is more that there aren't any posts about recent indy matches in the Funk, Valentine or Morton threads, nor has there been any critical talk that I've seen posted at PWO of how Terry Funk is doing these days. If that's coming (not just from you, from anyone), that's great news.

 

Loss, I have criticized because you haven't actually seen his peak and make conclusions based ONLY on his post-peak.

[Shining Wiz]

His point is that it keeps being mentioned that evaluating the post-peak is not an attempt to tear down Flair, but just an attempt to praise the guys who were great old guys, yet to this point, all the talk of how important it is to consider the post-peak in this thread and not the others. It's still early in the project, so hopefully that changes. I don't think Matt D, Dylan and Will are all arguing the exact same thing here, so I don't want to group you all together. But I've even criticized Lawler for post-peak things and I've been criticized for drawing conclusions about him based on watching footage from after the 80s. In the case of Dylan, I know you watch all the Funk footage and I don't expect Parv would have much of an issue admitting that he hasn't watched much wrestling from the past 15 years. I think his point is more that there aren't any posts about recent indy matches in the Funk, Valentine or Morton threads, nor has there been any critical talk that I've seen posted at PWO of how Terry Funk is doing these days. If that's coming (not just from you, from anyone), that's great news.

I'd reiterate my point about the context of these geriatric matches as well. Funk is nostalgia on a tiny Indy show, not being booked to have a top match in Wrestlemania at 60. That doesn't mean you don't consider Funks old man matches, or that Flair's retirement match outweighs the Steamboat trilogy, but there are concrete differences.

[Loss]

I've also commented on Lawler-Dory, both Lawler-Funk matches in '81, Lawler-Blackwell and whatever else was in 1981. In years past, I've talked about the Lawler-Dundee matches in 1977, 1983 and 1985, which I loved. I've also talked about how I'm not a fan of his Savage match in '85 with the huge commercial break in the middle. I admittedly haven't reviewed those in the same way I have the 90s footage.

[goodhelmet]

In these arguments, you haven't brought up the 77, 83 and 85 matches, only his heel run and post 90 stuff. I know you started on the 80s but didn't finish it. It is still an incomplete look and your criticisms were primarily about his 1990 heel run.

[Dylan Waco]

His point is that it keeps being mentioned that evaluating the post-peak is not an attempt to tear down Flair, but just an attempt to praise the guys who were great old guys, yet to this point, all the talk of how important it is to consider the post-peak in this thread and not the others. It's still early in the project, so hopefully that changes. I don't think Matt D, Dylan and Will are all arguing the exact same thing here, so I don't want to group you all together. But I've even criticized Lawler for post-peak things and I've been criticized for drawing conclusions about him based on watching footage from after the 80s. In the case of Dylan, I know you watch all the Funk footage and I don't expect Parv would have much of an issue admitting that he hasn't watched much wrestling from the past 15 years. I think his point is more that there aren't any posts about recent indy matches in the Funk, Valentine or Morton threads, nor has there been any critical talk that I've seen posted at PWO of how Terry Funk is doing these days. If that's coming (not just from you, from anyone), that's great news.

 

I rarely post about modern indie wrestling here. But I do talk about it often on Twitter and WKO.

[Loss]

In these arguments, you haven't brought up the 77, 83 and 85 matches, only his heel run and post 90 stuff. I know you started on the 80s but didn't finish it. It is still an incomplete look and your criticisms were primarily about his 1990 heel run.

 

Right. Because I didn't think those same criticisms applied to the early matches. They applied to the late ones. He's not a heel in very many 80s matches. When I watch them, we'll see how they hold up.

[JerryvonKramer]

I don't get why people don't think there's something to learn in how a wrestler adapts to not being able to use the same tools that they once did. I just really don't get that. It's not about giving or taking away points, it's about understanding a wrestler and how well they understand their craft and thereby how well they potentially understood it when they were younger and how that understanding shaped every match of their career and how it developed or didn't develop over the years. How is this not interesting to you guys?

It is interesting to me, and I do understand why you do it. However, not every wrestler is great because they are necessarily the smartest worker.

 

I'll say it: I don't think Flair was ever the smartest wrestler. It's no real surprise that he wasn't able to work around his limitations like a Giant Baba was able to. Giant Baba was probably twice as smart as Flair. I've talked about it before, Flair is all about instinct, working on the fly, feeling the crowd and knowing what to do intuitively. He's not a "Matt D worker", never was and never will be. He's making it up as he goes along for the best part. Not every thing he does is going to be logical. Some stuff is just to pop the crowd after a quiet spell. Some stuff is just to eat up time. If ALL you value in wrestling is "working smart" then maybe Giant Baba should be your top 5 guy. Flair's not your man. He feels his way through matches rather than thinks through them. But he can still have matches in the 4.5-5-star range with practically anyone from Steamboat to Jumbo to Ron Garvin to Kerry Von Erich or anyone else.

 

I sometimes just wonder if you are so concerned with "smartness" that you might even overlook the exceptional work in matches like that. I'm not having a go, but there are days when I wonder if you might genuinely rank Andre in 1989 above Flair in 1989 just because of the things you look for. It's possible sometimes to miss the woods for the trees.

[Matt D]

Greatness is going to be decided by democratic vote. After the vote's over, you can tell me that I was wrong, as it pertains to the quasi-objective results of the poll. In the meantime, however, I don't go around and tell you that your criteria is faulty. I only explain how I feel, because it's my right, and in part because I do think it adds SOMETHING to the discussion and because I feel strongly about it. I honestly appreciate that you go to such lengths to try to understand me.

 

In the meantime, I'll still rank Flair very highly, because he does a number of things well, and because, on a lesser level, he has great matches. I might even rank him #1. I don't know yet. That's why he's my #1 priority. I don't ignore those matches. I try to understand them and see if the reasons they're so highly considered match up with my criteria or not. I try to understand back. I just don't always agree.

[goodhelmet]

 

In these arguments, you haven't brought up the 77, 83 and 85 matches, only his heel run and post 90 stuff. I know you started on the 80s but didn't finish it. It is still an incomplete look and your criticisms were primarily about his 1990 heel run.

 

Right. Because I didn't think those same criticisms applied to the early matches. They applied to the late ones. He's not a heel in very many 80s matches. When I watch them, we'll see how they hold up.

 

 

 

Dude, the big comparison I have of Flair vs. Lawler is in the 00s, not the 80s or 90s. Lawler has some bad matches in the 00s. So does Flair. However, I have watched a ton of classic Lawler performances up until the guy was 60. That is a feather in his cap. I like the HBK Mania match. I guess that can be Flair's feather.

[ohtani's jacket]

I don't get why people don't think there's something to learn in how a wrestler adapts to not being able to use the same tools that they once did.

Because people don't want to watch wrestlers when they're old and broken down? You have to be pretty invested in a wrestler (or curious) to want to see how good he was all after his prime. And greatness in older wrestlers is even more contentious than greatness in wrestlers full stop. People who like the wrestler tend to get far more out of their later worker than people who don't. Look at Blue Panther.