Loss Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 In fairness, I think they are referring more to someone like Terry Gordy than Nikita Koloff -- someone who has lots to contribute to a match, but gets boxed into a broomstick match. Gordy is always the example cited, but I've also seen it said for people like Terry Taylor and Butch Reed. In other words, I think the criticism is that Flair treats some guys like broomsticks that aren't broomsticks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Also, just a reminder about this: Anyone who really wants to come on to debate this can on an unscheduled part 5. Pre-requisites are listening to all the arguments and engaging specific points. There really would be no point in it otherwise. I'd bring in someone as impartial moderator. Deadline for PMs: Friday, October 9th. Number of PMs so far: ZERO. I don't need a PM to accept but I need time to listen to all of the podcasts. How much time do I have to listen to the podcasts before recording? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 After reading some of GOTNW's reviews before though, he's just a guy I'm afraid I have to write off completely. I just can't take him seriously. He might do the same to me, but whatever. How afraid of opposing viewpoints are you Parv? This isn't the first time you've wrote someone off or said you can't take them seriously simply because they don't agree with your viewpoint. If the guy was a prick or something sure, but you sure do seem to love to run away from opposing viewpoints being presented in a well reasoned and thoughtful manner an awful lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Also, just a reminder about this: Anyone who really wants to come on to debate this can on an unscheduled part 5. Pre-requisites are listening to all the arguments and engaging specific points. There really would be no point in it otherwise. I'd bring in someone as impartial moderator. Deadline for PMs: Friday, October 9th. Number of PMs so far: ZERO. I don't need a PM to accept but I need time to listen to all of the podcasts. How much time do I have to listen to the podcasts before recording? Let's take this to PM. Bill, I'm hardly running away from anything. It's just that I've read a few of GOTNW's reviews and don't think he and I are ever going to see eye to eye on basically anything. To the point where I don't think engagement with them would be particularly fruitful. That's not running away, it's getting to the point where the impasse is such that there's no point even having the conversation. His reviews read like hatchet jobs to me, and when guys like Chad or Charles have put in so much thought, effort and analysis into the same matches only to see them get beaten with a bludgeon, I don't see why I should give him time and attention when he doesn't seem to have bothered to do that for anyone else. Some of us take stuff seriously, and to the point where sometimes it's better not to go there with someone who in your mind just doesn't get it and never will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Along the lines of my previous comment on the broomstick formula, it reminds me of something Sean Waltman once said about Flair -- he always called the matches with Sting and Luger and told them what to do, but never told them why they were doing it. His theory on the reason was that because that way, they would always need him. I don't really know what I think of that or even if that's something as fans we should care about either way, but it's a very interesting theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 I wonder how much any of the old-timers ever explained the "why", especially to kids they considered greener than grass. Do you think Bock explained why to Hogan? Do you think Buddy Rose did to any of his younger opponents? I'm not saying they didn't, but have you ever heard a wrestler give an account of an older guy explaining exactly why they are doing everything they are? I think the expectation was to pick things up almost by osmosis. Learn on the job, "get a feel" for it, etc. And then maybe in the car ride on the way home, if the kid fucked up they might lay out why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Sort of jumping in late after a bunch of conversations have moved through this thread, but I just listened to the first one and am about half way through the second. I just have a few thoughts, mostly about the podcast itself but a few things about other thoughts that I will sort of indirectly get to. I actually quite enjoy the one sidedness of the series as a bit of change of pace. Within the context of the greatest wrestler project, the larger existence of the PTBN wrestling podcasts, and this board (not to mention the larger internet wrestling discourse), it is kind of nice to hear a sustained and detailed argument for why a particular wrestler was effective and where he may be placed in the grand scheme of things. It is kind of like picking up a book on a subject instead of getting a journal or news article, or worse yet reading headlines, tweets, and facebook posts. In all reality, a short series like this should probably be done for the sort of top tier of wrestlers who are likely to wind up in they top 10 or so of the greatest wrestler project. I am pretty comfortable with my Flair knowledge, but this could really help me understand other guys (not to vote, but just in general). I get why some people might consider the format a waste of time, but only if you place in the context of back and forth discussion, which is what most podcasts do. By breaking the format a bit it is jarring – and admittedly took me a minute to get into – but is somewhat refreshing. I really liked some of the finer details of his psychology (the chops, the perpetual motion stuff) from the first podcast. While I will have to rewatch some matches to see how well the perpetual motion theory holds up, I really buy the chops stuff pretty much on face value. Flair’s 60 minute man shtick, the pace, and the wearing guys down stuff was always a sort of implicit part of my reading of Flair’s matches, but that sort of detail and theory is what makes the format and the project itself useful. It provides space to forward something somewhat new (at least to some of us), which we can then take, digest, and do with what we please. Being only half way through, we will see how much I like the format of the second by the end, but I am generally ok with it as an interesting experiment. I like getting the promos in full and in order. The literary criticism stuff speaks to me. I think Parv and I are in the same general profession, but not field (I believe I heard him say he was a college prof.). Regardless, I am enjoying the analysis of the promos as they progress and build upon one another. The on thing that I am (so far) missing and wanting is a discussion of some of his slick Ric promos where he was branding himself and his catch phrases. This in depth analysis of that could be compelling. I don’t mean to get back to a discussion about Flair rather than the podcasts, but I do think the argument about Flair’s style not evolving as much as one might hope through the 90s, especially in his WWE run holds some water. I always find myself disappointed with the matches. Even the Savage matches, which I really like, always leave me feeling like I want to like them more, like somehow 5+5 only came to 9 somehow. It just didn’t add up like it should have… if that makes sense. I think Flair returned to a well (or a series of wells) that he had a lot of success with while the people around him were trying to do something else. The ethos of Flair felt old and I don’t use that term as a way of abstracting things too quickly. Flair was trying to do things that could have worked, while guys like Savage and Hart were trying to do something different. Hart obviously frames it has him trying to do something more innovative and I am not trying to necessarily say that, but it kind of felt like styles coming up against one another sometimes and causing friction. Flair’s matches didn’t feel like they had the room to breath that they did earlier. I am not sure it is Flair’s fault, but I do wonder if he could have done more to adapt his style to the surroundings to do something completely different with the WWF guys, Hart and Savage particularly. The thing is, he had proven he could do a variety of matches and had a fair amount of diversity, but we didn’t see yet a new Flair that really jived like I feel it should have in the WWF. There are probably a billion reasons (face territory vs heel territory, maybe Flair’s admitted insecurities, younger guys trying to push in a new direction, etc etc etc). Edit: Also, what is that song you use at the beginning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Parts 3 and 4 have been uploaded and added to the original post as well as PTBN link. Part 3: Top 20 Matches https://soundcloud.com/jerryvonkramer/fair-for-flair-3 On part 3 of this mini-series Parv welcomes Pete (Titans of Wrestling, This Week in Wrestling), who picks and analyses his Top 20 Ric Flair matches and discusses Flair's body of work in the ring. Part 4: Assessing Flair for the Greatest Wrestler Ever project https://soundcloud.com/jerryvonkramer/fair-for-flair-4 On part 4, Parv welcomes Charles (Pro Wrestling Only) to discuss Flair's case for the Greatest Wrestler Ever project and to assess how he compares with other top-tier candidates such as Terry Funk, Jerry Lawler, Stan Hansen, Jumbo Tsuruta, Genichiro Tenryu, Mitsuharu Misawa, Kenta Kobashi, Toshiaki Kawada, Tatsumi Fujinami, Negro Casas, El Satanico, and many others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMick Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 In fairness, I think they are referring more to someone like Terry Gordy than Nikita Koloff -- someone who has lots to contribute to a match, but gets boxed into a broomstick match. Gordy is always the example cited, but I've also seen it said for people like Terry Taylor and Butch Reed. In other words, I think the criticism is that Flair treats some guys like broomsticks that aren't broomsticks. I haven't watched them yet, but aren't the Taylor and Reed matches from Mid-South set well respected? Just in the top 30, I see them coming in at 16, 24, 25 and 27. Could they have been better? Genuinely curious - I'm looking forward to watching them soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 I liked the Reed matches although I thought the finish to the 1 hour draw made Reed look really stupid. The Taylor matches did not do nearly as well on my ballot as they did in the overall voting but then I was one of the most vocal anti-Taylor participants so take that for what it's worth. (Although the second match with Chris Adams from the very end of UWF made my top 10 if I remember correctly) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Flair can come off like a pole dancer where the other person is not allowed to add anything of their own to the performance. It seems feasible to me that there were workers who were quite happy to work a Flair style match. I mean who's going to turn their nose up at a heated main event that draws well? And even within the confines of having to work the match Flair's way there were still opportunities to get yourself over by selling well and projecting some kind of aura. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Parv, it doesn't look like part 3 made it to itunes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Should be there because it downloaded for me last night, see "feed", something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Very strange, its definitely not showing up in itunes for me. #4 came through without any issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Hmmm, you're right, seems not to be on there, not sure what to suggest since all the right boxes are ticked. I'll try re-upping the file and see if that fixes. You can listen / download from the Soundcloud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Show up for me again now. Sorted Wing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Show up for me again now. Sorted Wing? No, very strange its missing for some reason. Will check again today/tomorrow and if not download the mp3 via soundcloud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradhindsight Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 It auto downloaded for me last night when released. That's weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebrainfollower Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 The last podcast is simply amazing. Since my point about Flair and the whole UT thing was brought up, I wasn't saying Flair forced opponents to wrestle his match and disrespected them on purpose. What I was saying was that an argument against GOAT Flair is that he didn't study his opponents at all. That's fine when you are working 350 matches a year against 100 opponents like in 85, but it's less acceptable when you are wrestling 200 matches against say, what 8 or so guys in 1992? I don't know if ANYONE will get this but I have no problem with you having "your" spots, such as moves you do or stuff you do wrong. So Bret getting sent chest first into the corner, fine. Dibiase putting his head down and getting countered, fine. But Flair telling an opponent to do a move that they have NEVER done, would have no reason to do and there's another move they DO do that would do the same thing (UT did a double choke lift all the time) just doesn't make any darn sense to me. The argument is going to be that "that's not how stuff was done in Flair's prime. Yup totally true. But it ISN'T how stuff was done in 1992 and Flair didn't adapt. Funk and Lawler did THAT better IMO and that's one argument why they might be the GOAT and not Flair. I am not sure that's right I am saying it's a valid argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 My main question would be that could something as tiny as that really be the differentiator between putting someone like a Funk above Flair? To me it seems really disproprotionate. As in, even if what you are saying is true --that Flair made certain opponents do spots they didn't usually do whereas Funk didn't (as I said, there are spots that Funk opponents ONLY do vs. Funk, but let's humour this) -- in the overall scheme of things how significant is it really? I mean what about all the other arguments made? Does fixating on this one tiny detail invalidate all the other stuff Pete said or Charles said or I said in those last two parts? Not having a go, just wondering why this one thing is given so much importance, especially when the other examples like Funk are given a compleltely free pass when they shoehorn opponents into standard spots too -- the bark like a dog, the roly poly, the jab duel. Funk opponents habitually are made to do those things when they never do them vs. anyone else. I gave other examples: Rey's 619, Bossman's leg over the bottom rope. There are others that we haven't mentioned, like Bret's standard transition through the sternum bump, which he'd do as a face or a heel to set up the heat or shine respectively. Whoever it is would have to do the move that produces the sternum bump. It just seems very nitpicky to do that to Flair when you could do it basically to any wrestler. I am also going to be starting my "GWE Top Tier Guys vs. SCRUBS" sub-project soon, reviewing matches from top guys against lesser opponents. Since so many of the knocks on Flair come when not in his top end matches but in his lesser matches against lesser guys. I am going to shine a very bright light on Misawa, Kawada, Jumbo, Lawler, Tenryu etc. etc. vs. lesser guys. Let's see how great they are against the equivalent of a Nikita Koloff in 85. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebrainfollower Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 I thought of that too Jerry, is this nitpicking. I sort of see this GOAT discussion as like grading a paper on a 100 point scale. What's the difference between 100 and 99? Isn't it by nature something nitpicky like that? I am not giving Funk a pass on this, as you say he had tons of stuff he shoehorned it and that's a problem. I don't rank Funk above Flair. As to Bret I specifically addressed this above. There's a huge difference between taking a bump and calling your opponent to do a move they never do. If that's nitpicky, okay fine it's nitpicky. To the average wrestling fan nearly everything we talk about here is nitpicky. We have taken nitpicky to a new high in wrestling, let's embrace it! How good Undertaker was in 92 (not very) is beside the point. It would take Flair watching ONE taker match to see taker has a move he could do that would do the same thing and it's a regular UT move. If an actor ever told me in a play "There's this reaction I like, now it's not how you act at all would you mind doing it I would tell him no "but we can work this out later". And at times, with new people coming into shows all the time, it is as impromptu as wrestling was. Maybe I'm setting an unfair standard. But someone like Bret seemed to at least try to think about each and every opponent and Flair didn't. That's one thing Bret (As an example) has above Flair. And for me personally it's not a huge thing, it's a big problem that's indicative of a lot I don't like about Flair. I am not sure it's enough to deny Flair the GOAT for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 I thought of that too Jerry, is this nitpicking. I sort of see this GOAT discussion as like grading a paper on a 100 point scale. What's the difference between 100 and 99? Isn't it by nature something nitpicky like that? The main issue with this is that it might assume at some level "all other things being equal", but all other things are not equal, because ... well, most other people just didn't have Flair's career, variety of matches, opponents, quality, quantity, etc. etc. as we've discussed over and over. So let's say Flair starts at 100 based on all of that and that tiny thing knocks him down to 99, so what? Who else is at 100 based on all of the same criteria? This is more to the issue and more what we are getting at in Part 4. And then let's say -- for the sake of example -- you work out that for you based on whatever Funk is a 100. Then does he get the same sort of scrutiny? Are you going to pull out a random match he had in 1981 in South West against ... whoever. Well, see, I did review that match in South West and it wasn't all that. Funk phoned it in that night. But, when it comes to Funk's case nobody is going to give a single shit about that, whereas in the Flair case for some reason it is supposed to matter. Do you understand where I am coming from on that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 EDIT: Forgive me for I have sinned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 I'd certainly be interested to take a look if there's any footage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted October 10, 2015 Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 I'm fairly certain those car dealership parking lot matches did not make tape or I would imagine it would have made the rounds here at least once just for the novelty factor. Haven't really seen anything from Flair in Southeastern/Continental except the finish to a Ron Fuller match where Bob Armstrong turned heel and the first few minutes of a Wendell Cooley match that aired on Continental TV. (Which I think may have actually been his last or one of the last 3-4 matches he did as traveling World Champ) 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.