Fair for Flair: a mini-series

[Dylan Waco]

Dylan, great post. On the issue of criteria, Parv and I go in depth on criteria and how critical it is in evaluating wrestlers. In that sense, the issue was addressed but one podcast later.

 

We also discussed the idea of Flair not being able to hit his signature spots later on.

 

I'll be listening to this show tomorrow.

[JerryvonKramer]

Some fantastic posts above. Only thing I want to add is that on the Shawn comparison, I don't really consider it as a valid comparison.

 

Ric and Shawn are mentioned in the same breath because in kayfabe terms both were put over by WWF (Ric also by WCW) as the GOAT. I honestly believe that the ONLY two reasons a lot of fans list Shawn as a #1 contender is because, first, that hype has rubbed off (i.e. Vince's machine has worked) and #2 because they are fans who tend to stay within WWE bubble. I'm not saying it is impossible for someone to have Shawn as a Top 5 having watched a ton of 70s, 80s, 90s etc., but I don't think it's a coincidence that on a board where a lot of guys have done that Shawn is not generally considered top tier.

 

Now, you might say the same about Ric, he was put over by both the WWF and in the sheets (especially Meltzer) as the GOAT for probably longer than Shawn was. The difference is that with Ric we can point to a metric ton of great matches. With Shawn EVEN IF you accept that they are great matches (which, as you know, I tend not to) the body of work is still slim relative to a Jumbo, a Flair, a Misawa etc. He's a WWF candidate, and that can only go so far.

 

So in a sense, the comparison is a misnomer in my view and that's why I basically gave it very little time on the part 4 show.

 

I do think Dylan raises some interesting points with the comparison, and I do think that one of the reasons Flair himself (and other wrestlers) put Shawn over so hard is because there are superficial similarities in their working styles: in short, they both worked from underneath a lot, and the ability to make others look good has always had a premium among the boys and among smart fans. And even I'd accept that Shawn could be great at that. Loss hit on some good points to show up where the similarities between Flair and Michaels end though, and I'm not sure I have much more to add. It's difficult for me to talk about Michaels much because my personal loathing for both him and modern WWE main event style comes into play, and I feel it brings out the worst in me.

[goodhelmet]

Nikita was a super over heel v. Magnum in '86. He didn't have to sell as much, could rely on power spots, and his juiced up killer aura (his biggest asset). Vs. Flair in the fall, he was a face, which didn't play to any of these strengths. No, I don't think the Flair v. Nikita matches were fantastic, but it's not a directly applicable comparison.

 

Flair never went away . . . but never got truly rejected by his audience, something that can't be said about Hogan and many other all time greats.

 

Coincidentally, I had just listened to the Flair/Lawler/Funk Wrestling Culture episode where Will made similar Lawler arguments. In both shows, there's tons of extrapolating to get many of Flair's great matches into "just good" matches (or not as impressive due to the level of competition) and Lawler's "good programs" into all-time great matches. Lawler is a deserved all-time great, but I don't see the same level of scrunity being appied to his credentials. As far as Lawler being a guy, like Flair & Funk, who could go into any environment and get over, Lawler didn't do as well in Japan, the one place where his style wasn't a fit. Lawler got over where he could get over as Jerry Lawler being great at Jerry Lawler. Flair & Funk were more successful at adapting to their environment.

 

The Lawler getting over in different environments argument is interesting, because he seemed to struggle in Florida, Southwest, Georgia, PWUSA and Japan. He did get over in the WWF, AWA and Texas. I don't think that's a knock against him because he worked in the environment he needed to work, and I think stepping outside the goal posts of Memphis isn't really important to Lawler's case. Nothing he did outside of Memphis should make or break him. But I also wouldn't argue getting over in different environments as something that favors him, and certainly not more than a Funk, Flair, Hogan, Abdullah, Dusty, the Freebirds, the Road Warriors or even someone like Ted DiBiase, Kevin Sullivan or Dynamite Kid.

 

We have seen killer babyfaces before. At the time, the Roadies and later Goldberg. For NIkita, the point was that he was having great matches just months before the Starrcade match. Whether it was Flair's fault or Nikita's fault or the booker's fault, it fell flat. We do have house show footage of the Dream Team working together against the Horsemen where the crowd is red hot so it wasn't a case of Nikita not being over. My argument was that lesser workers had better matches with guys like Gordy and Nikita than Flair. I also conceded that sometimes people just don't mix.

 

As for the matches, my argument was that everyone on the great Flair matches list (save for Luger) will probably be in the upper echelon of my Top 100. Great workers should have great matches with great workers. If Valentine and Garvin didn't have great matches, I would be upset. If Lawler and Dundee didn't have great matches, I would be disappointed. If Jumbo and Tenryu didn't have great matches, I would be disappointed. My main argument, and maybe I didn't articulate it, but I did write it in the Lawler thread was that Lawler was the REAL Broomstick worker. He had great matches against shmucks who would never sniff the Top 100 let alone the Top 50. If you don't think the Bundy match was great, the Kimala 2003 match was great, the Idol cage match or the Bigelow match was great then we will have a difference of opinion and leave it that. I can probably watch those matches again and explain more in depth why I think they are great (damn DVDVR for going down) but that was the main point of my argument. I am not denying Flair had many, many great matches. My argument was Lawler did more with less. Then, when Lawler was giving the opportunity to pair up with great wrestlers (Dundee, Bock, Flair, Funk, Fujinami), we usually got something great out of it.

 

Outside of Memphis, Lawler didn't have the benefit of being on national TV when he went to other territories. As Kris and goc pointed out, he ended up headlining those places (and being high on the card in Houston). As for Japan, I never said he was able to get a hold of the country the way other wrestlers did. My point referred more to the DVDVR project. When Lawler popped up in the AWA, Texas, Japan, etc., his matches usually found their way on to the set. The main point was that Flair being successful in different places wasn't exclusive to Flair. Dusty, the Roadies, DK, Abby like Loss said all got over in Japan and Puerto Rico. Doesn't mean shit if the matches aren't good. Even when Lawler wrestled Fujinami in silence, the match was pretty damn good. Kudos to Flair for not wrestling in front of silent Japanese crowds. Hulk Hogan was able to get over wherever he went at his peak. Doesn't mean anything to me. Negro Casas has only gotten over in Mexico. So what? He's awesome. It isn't a metric I am going to use in my criteria for GWE.

 

 

Yeah sling, what I was getting at by him having to "relativise" the argument. You put it better than me I think.

I don't mean to pick on Will, but he certainly argues his case with fervor. He makes a strong case for Lawler's virtues, but when faced with his weaknesses, he relates to emotional preference and implies the weaknesses don't matter. Flair's every weakness is scrutinized (as it should be if we're making a case for all-time great), but it feels like Lawler's are taken off the table. I'd love to see him examine them, as I'm sure he'd make a great case. For me, the bottom line is the case for Flair holds up to scrutiny. Even when we acknowledge his flaws, the mountain of evidence left standing preserves his spot.

 

 

This was the point where criteria is really important. I made this argument when I did Graham's show and made it again. I think the style of wrestling you enjoy is just as important as the wrestler itself. If I enjoy Memphis wrestling more than any other wrestling style and Lawler excels (or could be argued as the best) at the things I value most, what weaknesses do you want me to focus on? I have no problem saying Lawler isn't an elite mat worker. To be fair, I don't think Flair is either. It doesn't matter to me. If Lawler never went to the mat, it wouldn't affect my love for his work one iota. If Flair just chopped and punched the shit out of somebody, I would probably love the match. I enjoy Memphis wrestling, All Japan and lucha more than 30-60 minute world title NWA matches. I know Loss doesn't like the way Lawler carried himself as champion with the chain and shtick. Me and Phil Schneider ate that shit up when watching Texas. Sometimes what we value is just as important as the actual wrestler. What other weaknesses do you want me to point out? His shitty Stone Cold Stunner in 2003? Acknowledged.

[Childs]

I also listened to part 4 and found it a provocative addition to the overall GWE debate.

 

A few points ...

 

I feel you guys overstate the degree to which Flair has been picked over more than the other top candidates. I agree he's been scrutinized for longer because he's been the GOAT standard for at least 20 years. But over the same time, we've seen an enormous amount of debate and discussion over All Japan. We've had the '80s projects and the '90s yearbooks, which have put spotlights on Jumbo, Lawler, Hansen, Fujinami, Bock, Tenryu and others. We've seen plenty of Funk discussion, spurred by Dylan, Will, Parv and others. OJ has done a terrific job laying a base of criticism for the top lucha and British candidates. MattD has emerged as an interesting voice of skepticism on Hansen.

 

I could point you to lines of criticism and doubting voices on all of the No. 1 contenders. And frankly, for all the Flair discussion, I haven't seen much of the granular, week-to-week criticism Charles says is lacking for other candidates. With Flair as with everyone else, we're more likely to talk about the greatest hits and a few choice album cuts.

 

Personally, I've watched every '80s set and every yearbook, participated in Ditch's 2000s Japan project, watched the All Japan and New Japan classics covering the '70s and watched literally every piece of footage available from All Japan, New Japan and Portland in the '80s. I'm working my way through a big stack of British footage and also trying to keep a vague eye on current wrestling. That still leaves gaps. There will always be gaps. And I don't list all that footage to suggest I'm special. I think it's fairly typical of the efforts put in by a lot of posters on this board (including Parv and Charles).

 

So while we're further along in discussions of Flair than with most other candidates, I don't see the lack of critical thinking alluded to in the podcast.

 

Charles said near the end that a would-be voter should figure out a standard and then hold every wrestler to it. That struck me as a good description of Parv's approach. He has decided that his No. 1 needed to work effectively against a wide variety of opponents and needed to work as "The Man." He's also judging largely, maybe even exclusively, on a wrestler's peak. Not coincidentally, that's a rubric that lines up very well with the strengths of Ric Flair.

 

That's a fine way to go at this thing.

 

But it's not how I look at it. I don't have a clear set of criteria for my top-of-ballot candidates. Everyone is not trying to leap over the same bar.

 

I would describe my approach more as trying to understand exactly what each wrestler was and what he/she was trying to be. What were his/her strengths and weaknesses? How high were his/her peaks and how meaty was his/her entire career?

 

I appreciate Flair for the durability of his style, his intense work ethic and the fact he mastered the most sought-after job in the business. But I appreciate Kawada just as much for his portrayal of the man who wasn't quite meant to be king and for the physical heights to which he and his compatriots pushed the craft. I appreciate Hansen playing the Terminator come to life and yet subtly building up his opponents as they feuded. I appreciate Lawler as the ultimate defender of his own turf and Fujiwara as the master of defense and ring positioning.

 

I also recognize flaws in all those guys. Flair and Kawada weren't particularly interesting as older wrestlers. Hansen guzzled too many opponents and didn't produce a string of classics against Jumbo (though I still find it irritating when people say they never had a great match--10/21/86 was great, damnit!). Lawler worked tired schtick as a heel. Fujiwara didn't main event a lot in major promotions and worked an offensive style that doesn't click with everyone.

 

My job is to make sure I understand each wrestler as best I can and then make personal choices as to which career I value more. I'm not sure Charles or Parv would agree with me, but I do think this is a more personal process than the HOF. We all define greatness a little differently and the contest is as much between those definitions as it is between wrestlers. I don't want to suggest I'm a complete relativist. It is important, for example, that Flair earned the top job in the business and did it well enough that his name is inseparable from our concept of that job. Parv and Charles are correct to say that's a major accomplishment and not some bit of luck. But the decision of how to weight that accomplishment against an aesthetic preference for Kawada is ultimately a personal one. I don't see any way around that.

[supremebve]

I don't want to be the guy telling people how to spend their time, but I'd like to listen to one of these series for all of the #1 contenders. We aren't all going to agree on these things, but getting perspective is always helpful. Flair is probably the most interesting subject of this entire process, because he's been THE wrestler for most of our lives. Flair for all his strengths and faults is the wrestler we've been told is the best for the last 30 years. Hulk Hogan was never Ric Flair in the eyes of hardcore fans. Shawn Michaels is probably the most polarizing wrestler among hardcores. Bret Hart was great, but so much of his career is remembered for things outside of the ring. Flair is the guy who we generally only talk about for the greatness of his matches and promos. The best part of the way we look at Flair is that for the most part all of the praise is justified. The worst part is that we can't possibly gauge how much those years of praise has influenced our opinions of him. I'd like to hear a deep in depth discussion about guys like Jumbo, Lawler(haven't seen nearly enough Lawler), Fujinami(I'm just starting to watch his stuff), and the All Japan guys. Is there any plan to do any more of these? I'd love to hear a breakdown of the relevant luchadores and Joshi wrestlers too.

[Grimmas]

I don't want to be the guy telling people how to spend their time, but I'd like to listen to one of these series for all of the #1 contenders. We aren't all going to agree on these things, but getting perspective is always helpful. Flair is probably the most interesting subject of this entire process, because he's been THE wrestler for most of our lives. Flair for all his strengths and faults is the wrestler we've been told is the best for the last 30 years. Hulk Hogan was never Ric Flair in the eyes of hardcore fans. Shawn Michaels is probably the most polarizing wrestler among hardcores. Bret Hart was great, but so much of his career is remembered for things outside of the ring. Flair is the guy who we generally only talk about for the greatness of his matches and promos. The best part of the way we look at Flair is that for the most part all of the praise is justified. The worst part is that we can't possibly gauge how much those years of praise has influenced our opinions of him. I'd like to hear a deep in depth discussion about guys like Jumbo, Lawler(haven't seen nearly enough Lawler), Fujinami(I'm just starting to watch his stuff), and the All Japan guys. Is there any plan to do any more of these? I'd love to hear a breakdown of the relevant luchadores and Joshi wrestlers too.

Funny you mention that.

 

Coming soon. A still untitled series where GWE voters come on and make their cases for guys.

[Loss]

 

We have seen killer babyfaces before. At the time, the Roadies and later Goldberg. For NIkita, the point was that he was having great matches just months before the Starrcade match. Whether it was Flair's fault or Nikita's fault or the booker's fault, it fell flat. We do have house show footage of the Dream Team working together against the Horsemen where the crowd is red hot so it wasn't a case of Nikita not being over. My argument was that lesser workers had better matches with guys like Gordy and Nikita than Flair. I also conceded that sometimes people just don't mix.

This isn't directed at you, but I think Gordy is a phenomenal example, because Misawa didn't have great matches with him either. I'm not sure if Kawada ever faced him or not in a singles match, but if he did, it's not something that has really gained traction. Kobashi had a great match with Gordy, but Kobashi in 1993 would make a match through attrition. My point is that if we scratch the surface on Gordy, we'll probably find that no one in the GOAT conversation who faced him had a great match with him. I found the Jumbo match in 1984 underwhelming, and the 1985 one didn't even make the All Japan set. Gordy's best matches tended to come against guys who I like and who plenty of others like, but who I've never seen anyone argue as the GOAT -- Killer Khan, Kerry Von Erich, Jim Duggan and Steve Williams. That's not meant to excuse Flair, but because it leads me to think, "Ok, who can we point to that is in this conversation who had a great match with Terry Gordy?" And the only guy I can come up with is Kenta Kobashi and while I do like that match and would call it Gordy's best singles match of the 90s, it's not so much something I see people raise to point to Kobashi's ability to deliver a great match. It seems to be more that Flair should have pulled it off.

And perhaps he should have. I can admit that. Gordy was capable of having a great match. But there are other guys like Randy Savage who, while they did have great matches with great workers, tended to turn in career performances against lesser guys. Savage's matches with Hogan and Warrior may not touch his matches with Lawler and Steamboat, but if you look at what Savage brought to the matches, I think it can be argued he was a better carrier than dance partner. When I look at Gordy's best opponents, I think the same thing.

 

As for the matches, my argument was that everyone on the great Flair matches list (save for Luger) will probably be in the upper echelon of my Top 100. Great workers should have great matches with great workers. If Valentine and Garvin didn't have great matches, I would be upset. If Lawler and Dundee didn't have great matches, I would be disappointed. If Jumbo and Tenryu didn't have great matches, I would be disappointed. My main argument, and maybe I didn't articulate it, but I did write it in the Lawler thread was that Lawler was the REAL Broomstick worker. He had great matches against shmucks who would never sniff the Top 100 let alone the Top 50. If you don't think the Bundy match was great, the Kimala 2003 match was great, the Idol cage match or the Bigelow match was great then we will have a difference of opinion and leave it that. I can probably watch those matches again and explain more in depth why I think they are great (damn DVDVR for going down) but that was the main point of my argument. I am not denying Flair had many, many great matches. My argument was Lawler did more with less. Then, when Lawler was giving the opportunity to pair up with great wrestlers (Dundee, Bock, Flair, Funk, Fujinami), we usually got something great out of it.

I think this is a great point. It's probably the strongest point in Lawler's favor, actually. It also rings true for other regional stars. Buddy Rose is the first name I think of next to Lawler.

 

I know Loss doesn't like the way Lawler carried himself as champion with the chain and shtick. Me and Phil Schneider ate that shit up when watching Texas. Sometimes what we value is just as important as the actual wrestler. What other weaknesses do you want me to point out? His shitty Stone Cold Stunner in 2003? Acknowledged.

You're usually someone who defends Flair against criticism that he "plays the bitch", so you're consistent in your viewpoints here. So once again, this isn't directed at you. But I do think anyone who has Lawler over Flair for that reason is overlooking the obvious. Lawler was presented as the Unified Champion, the very best in the business. Yet he wrestled the same cheap heat style as the opening match guy and didn't really use any wrestling moves at all. There was nothing to suggest he was the best not just in stuff he did but how his matches were laid out. By comparison, I think about Flair being a giving guy but luring his opponent into a false sense of security. I'm thinking of a transition, you know the one, where his opponent gets frustrated because he can't keep Flair down and momentarily deviates from his game plan and tries a splash or elbow drop, only to eat canvas or a gut full of knees. Then suddenly Flair is the ultimate opportunist. So I think watching a Flair match, I can say, "Wow, this guy has nine lives, he takes a beating but he can find his way out of anything". We can debate if that's the best message to send to an audience when your lead competitor has a top star who beats everyone he faces cleanly, but I do think that there is a way to work as a heel champ and still seem credible even without taking much offense.

[Loss]

Childs, I haven't forgotten you. I need a break but will respond sometime in the next day.

[Dylan Waco]

Listened to the show with Will today, and I'm about a third of the way through the show with Pete. A couple of more thoughts:

 

One thing Parv keeps going back to is the idea that you can't punish Flair because of the opportunities that he got. Put another way there is an argument presented here that while it may be possible to envision others being successful in the Flair role, Flair was in the role, was in it for a reason, and should be judged on what he did. That all other people didn't get those chances doesn't mean that it was unfair for him to get them, and more importantly we can only fix our opinions on the realities of what happened, not the fantasies of what might have.

 

I agree with all of that, but I see a major inconsistency in this line of thought from Parv where it pertains to the 90's All Japan workers.

 

Kawada, Kobashi and Misawa were booked against each other and excellent matches. These matches happened. Because of the nature of All Japan these men did not get shipped around from place to place and have a bunch of chances to wrestle others. We can only judge them on what occurred, which is all time classic match after all time classic match. Yet for Parv it seems as though the fact that these men did not get shipped around to work a variety of places is held against them. There great matches are almost presented as if they have an asterisk next to them. While I think there is something to the point that they had these matches against each other, at the end of the day if you aren't interested in adjusting for the advantages conferred upon people by when, where, and how they were booked or presented, I don't see how you can possibly diminish the value of what they did by saying "well there great matches were primarily against each other." Flair had an advantage that he earned. They had an advantage that they earned. What's the difference?

 

Going farther still, I think it is a serious mistake to say "well these guys had their great matches, but they were against all time greats" because it ignores the fact that the reason these guys are considered all time greats is the matches against each other. Put another way, the case for their greatness is to a large degree those matches. It's not as if these were all time greats specifically paired against each other for that purpose. They became that together, and did it in a fashion that has never been done since. To me it would be like criticizing the strength of Flair's angles and promos in Crockett, because he was surrounded by excellent promos, and guys who could get over great angles. Obscuring the historic value of the Horseman as figures, promos, et. because they created it together strikes me as a response that would be 100 percent wrong.

 

One other thing I want to touch on is the issue of variety. This has come up a lot on these shows with Parv, Charles, Pete, Will, et. noting that Flair had good matches against a variety of opponents in a variety of places over a relatively long period of time. I don't disagree with any of that. That said I wish we heard more about Flair's variety of performance. We definitely get some of that on the Pete show, so I'm hoping to hear more as I finish that one up, but I would have liked to hear a more detailed discussion from Parv on his Four Faces of Flair theory. To me if you are trying to get away from the "GWE as a match problem" and/or "Great Match Theory" stuff, that is the way you do it.

 

Speaking more broadly, one of the key things I look for in an all time great performer or an all time great in ring year is the ability to play a variety of roles depending on the needs of a given place and time. For some people (I'm thinking Rey Jr. here but there are others), complete mastery of a role can be just as valuable, but generally speaking I think this sort of variety tells you more about a performer than whether or not they had good matches against a bunch of different people in a bunch of different places.

 

This is a weird example, but one of the reasons I am so high on Jimmy Rave this year is that I have seen him work as everything from an underdog babyface, to a cocky heel, to a sneaky heel, to a badass ace heel, to a veteran face trying to make good on his last shot, et. this year, sometimes with variations of these roles in the span of two nights. I've also seen him work a more highspot heavy style, a more measured slow building style, a flashy mat based style, brawling, multi-men matches with pace, and multi-men matches built around psychology. And yes I've seen him do this against a huge variety of opponents, in a variety of places, but the real argument for him being so great this year is that he changes his approach depending on place and opponent. That is the real variety/versatility argument.

 

Anyhow I'm not arguing Flair has none of that, and it may even be covered on the second half of the Pete show, but it's something I wanted to rant about a bit because it speaks to one of the key criteria I think about when I'm throwing together a ballot for something like this.

[elliott]

 

I don't want to be the guy telling people how to spend their time, but I'd like to listen to one of these series for all of the #1 contenders. We aren't all going to agree on these things, but getting perspective is always helpful. Flair is probably the most interesting subject of this entire process, because he's been THE wrestler for most of our lives. Flair for all his strengths and faults is the wrestler we've been told is the best for the last 30 years. Hulk Hogan was never Ric Flair in the eyes of hardcore fans. Shawn Michaels is probably the most polarizing wrestler among hardcores. Bret Hart was great, but so much of his career is remembered for things outside of the ring. Flair is the guy who we generally only talk about for the greatness of his matches and promos. The best part of the way we look at Flair is that for the most part all of the praise is justified. The worst part is that we can't possibly gauge how much those years of praise has influenced our opinions of him. I'd like to hear a deep in depth discussion about guys like Jumbo, Lawler(haven't seen nearly enough Lawler), Fujinami(I'm just starting to watch his stuff), and the All Japan guys. Is there any plan to do any more of these? I'd love to hear a breakdown of the relevant luchadores and Joshi wrestlers too.

Funny you mention that.

 

Coming soon. A still untitled series where GWE voters come on and make their cases for guys.

 

 

I am available for Satanico, Hansen, Rose, etc.

 

But I really just wanted to jump in and mention that this thread is full of some really awesome posts. Good stuff everyone.

[Shining Wiz]

I popped in to say how much I enjoyed the respectful debate on episode 5, and see I have some substantial reading to do in this thread.

 

I may pop back in later with more thoughts, but I did want to mention about the Flair formula. Flair was the travelling champion at the advent of the vcr. The travelling champion had to go in to a new town constantly, look good, draw the fans in, and make the local guy look good. Those requirements don't leave you a lot of room for bad chemistry. A couple of bad opponents and you might find a promoter lobbying for a new champ. It behooved Flair to have a go to formula he knew worked in order to avoid bad matches, and if he found someone hood, then build off of that formula. But if he had to wrestle Bulldog Bob Brown, better to have a formula to avoid disaster.

 

Combine the formula with the vcr, and we get so much of the formula that it takes away from the enjoyment. But Flair didn't work most of the 80's worrying about being recorded. He worried about the promoters wanting to book him as champion. By the time he stopped travelling, he was in his late 30's and fix what ain't broke. I'd be very curious to see what Flair matches would be like if he started his career 15 years later with more of an awareness that more than just the local eyes would see his match.

 

As a footnote, on the new Sting documentary, he talks a bit about asking Flair yo do different things in their matches since they always did the same match, and Flair not wanting to budge off of what was working for them.

[Grimmas]

 

 

I don't want to be the guy telling people how to spend their time, but I'd like to listen to one of these series for all of the #1 contenders. We aren't all going to agree on these things, but getting perspective is always helpful. Flair is probably the most interesting subject of this entire process, because he's been THE wrestler for most of our lives. Flair for all his strengths and faults is the wrestler we've been told is the best for the last 30 years. Hulk Hogan was never Ric Flair in the eyes of hardcore fans. Shawn Michaels is probably the most polarizing wrestler among hardcores. Bret Hart was great, but so much of his career is remembered for things outside of the ring. Flair is the guy who we generally only talk about for the greatness of his matches and promos. The best part of the way we look at Flair is that for the most part all of the praise is justified. The worst part is that we can't possibly gauge how much those years of praise has influenced our opinions of him. I'd like to hear a deep in depth discussion about guys like Jumbo, Lawler(haven't seen nearly enough Lawler), Fujinami(I'm just starting to watch his stuff), and the All Japan guys. Is there any plan to do any more of these? I'd love to hear a breakdown of the relevant luchadores and Joshi wrestlers too.

Funny you mention that.

 

Coming soon. A still untitled series where GWE voters come on and make their cases for guys.

 

 

I am available for Satanico, Hansen, Rose, etc.

 

But I really just wanted to jump in and mention that this thread is full of some really awesome posts. Good stuff everyone.

 

I might need to start this sooner than I thought, because there is a lot of volunteer guests.

[dawho5]

May need to do more than the 13 or 14 you have left also.

[JerryvonKramer]

One thing about his broomstick formula: he worked it better than Race. The average Flair title defense is better than the average Race title defense. And I can say this after a survey of both. I am higher on Race than some here, I think aspects of his work are overplayed in criticisms. But Flair was clearly better at working NWA title matches.

[JerryvonKramer]

Dylan you raise some good points, and Elliott articulated a similar objection also in a PM exchange we had.

 

I do get the idea of judging people on what they were and did not for what they weren't or didn't do. I think that is valid. Where I disagree is in the idea that my premium placed on a wide variety of great matches with a wide variety different opponents is misplaced or is in some way unfair to the All Japan crew.

 

For me the GOAT wrestler has to have had that. Seems to me AJ crew very probably had the best matches of all time with each other, that makes those the greatest matches of all time. I mean shit, I had 34 matches from AJ in my top 100, and many of those were Misawa and co. It doesn't make him or any one of them the GOAT in my estimation, because they didn't do it with a wide enough range of people. They may have had the best feud with the best work of all time, but I don't know if any of them had the best career of all time. There is a difference.

 

It's a hard set criteria for me, which is why Jumbo - a guy who legit faced off and did excellently vs. Five different NWA champions, held the AWA title and got over in three different decades against wildly different types of opponents is a legit challenger to Flair for #1. Misawa can't be and won't be.

 

I am fine with people disagreeing with my criteria. But for me, I can't call someone the greatest without that quality and without a career like that. It's not "fair" in the sense that both Flair's and Jumbo's careers are remarkable and unrepeatable, once in a generation type guys, but what can you do -- GOATs gonna GOAT.

 

Will puts a premium on getting more out of less. Chad puts a premium on great matches. Some others might put a premium on other things. Dylan puts a premium on working different styles in different settings in different roles.

 

It's easy to see why they are advocates for Lawler, Misawa and Funk respectively.

 

I am looking for someone who ticks all those boxes and did it for a sustained period against many different people -- all round great in almost every category.

 

And for me, the only guys who tick every box are Flair and Jumbo. You don't need to relativise their cases. You don't need to make qualifiers for what you do and don't value. They excel in almost every measurable area. They can hang multiple hats on multiple things. Their cases are wide and not narrow like some other cases, a who's who of everyone who was anyone in pro wrestling, and great matches and great fueds every step of the way. Flair was the man in the US, Jumbo was the man in Japan.

 

That's why those. There could be literally 100 Misawa vs. Kawada ***** classics and it can't change that fact for me. Is it their fault Baba was isolationist during that period? No. But it does mean that their cases are narrower and less multifaceted than Flair's and Jumbo's. De facto disqualifies them from the running for #1 spot, by my criteria.

 

I don't expect you to agree Dylan, especially not on Jumbo, but at least I hope you can see where I'm coming from with the criteria.

[elliott]

I know Parv asked for only people who listened to the podcasts to comment in this thread and I haven't listened to them but there is something here that I wanted to comment on.

I do get the idea of judging people on what they were and did not for what they weren't or didn't do. I think that is valid. Where I disagree is in the idea that my premium placed on a wide variety of great matches with a wide variety different opponents is misplaced or is in some way unfair to the All Japan crew.

For me the GOAT wrestler has to have had that. Seems to me AJ crew very probably had the best matches of all time with each other, that makes those the greatest matches of all time. I mean shit, I had 34 matches from AJ in my top 100, and many of those were Misawa and co. It doesn't make him or any one of them the GOAT in my estimation, because they didn't do it with a wide enough range of people. They may have had the best feud with the best work of all time, but I don't know if any of them had the best career of all time. There is a difference.

It's a hard set criteria for me, which is why Jumbo - a guy who legit faced off and did excellently vs. Five different NWA champions, held the AWA title and got over in three different decades against wildly different types of opponents is a legit challenger to Flair for #1. Misawa can't be and won't be.

 

One quick thing before I get to a longer thing.

 

I don't know if this is going to be considered "grading on a curve" or something but when I think about Kawada who had great singles matches against

Misawa, Kobashi, Jumbo, Taue, Hansen, Steve Williams, Gary Albright, Sasaki, Akiyama, Tenryu, etc

and great tag matches against those guys and also including

Johnny Ace, Yuji Nagata, Masa Fuchi, Dan Kroffat, Doug Furnas, Terry Gordy, Takashi Iizuka, Yoshinari Ogawa, Kikuchi, Takao Omori, Yoshiaki Yatsu, Satoru Asako, Giant Baba, etc.

 

Considering that Kawada worked in an isolationist promotion that didn't ship him out to various territories, that is actually an impressive amount of workers Kawada had great to all time classic matches with. How much variety does it take for variety to become "wide variety?"

 

The other thing I wanted to talk about was more criteria based. You've found criteria that works for you and that's cool and you have your #1 and #2 guys. I'm still trying to sort out the tippy top of my ballot. My "criteria" for my #1 candidates is less of a "criteria" and more of an "expectation." I expect my #1 wrestler to have longevity, a great peak, super high end matches in a variety of roles etc. The people I have challenging for #1 are Hansen, Flair, Satanico, Lawler, and Terry Funk. Realistically the Kawada/Jumbo/Tenryu/Misawa crew is right there with those other guys challenging for spots in the top 5. All of those guys meet my expectation for having great matches longevity variety etc so then I have to look at each guy and figure out what separates them and what the differences in their candidacy means to me. In my opinion, if you're a candidate for #1 you should have all of those qualities already when it comes to variety, peak, longevity, etc.

 

Flair built his case by traveling around the world working in front of a different crowd every night.

Lawler built his case working the same arenas every week for decades.

 

If your criteria is "my GOAT needed to travel around and have great matches everywhere" then you're automatically taking a guy like Jerry Lawler off the table which is crazy to me.

 

Or what about Negro Casas or Tenryu? If someone says "my criteria is that the wrestler must have maintained a strong post prime into their 50s and updated thier work to change with the times" then they're automatically taking Ric Flair off the table which is equally crazy to me.

 

Same thing with tag wrestling. A large part of Kawada's "case" is his status as one of if not the best tag workers ever. If my criteria is "Must have a large variety of singles and tags" then Flair is off the table. Again, equally crazy. But if you're someone who truly values tag work because it is a major part of wrestling, then you could easily point to that as a criticism of Flair's candidacy.

 

You have to consider these guys at the top on a case by case because, in my opinion, the surface level GOAT Case that these guys have are all going to be pretty similar when it comes to Peak, Longevity, Great matches, Variety, etc. But they have different strengths, weaknesses, situations, and contexts that led them to the same place (top of the list).

 

I think its wrong to say Kawada's candidacy is hurt because he didn't travel around and have great matches with a large variety of different workers (even though he did). Kawada's candidacy isn't about traveling around to various territories. It is about what he did in All Japan.

 

I'm not saying your criteria is wrong. It is the criteria that works for you. I just find it sort of...limiting I guess I would say? Like your criteria is wearing a turtleneck meant only for Flair and Jumbo.

[JerryvonKramer]

How much variety does it take for variety to become "wide variety?"

I can speak to this directly. Let's start with Jumbo, a guy who didn't travel that widely, taking in both singles and tags, and see ...

 

Dory Funk Jr, Jack Brisco, Terry Funk, Harley Race, Ric Flair, Billy Robinson, Rusher Kimura, Animal Hamaguchi, Kerry Von Erich, Stan Hansen*, Ted Dibiase, Dick Slater, Nick Bockwinkel, Rick Martel, Riki Choshu, Yoshiaki Yatsu, Genichiro Tenryu, Ashura Hara, Toshiaki Kawada, Mitsuharu Misawa, Kenta Kobashi.

 

That's 20 different guys he had 4+ star affairs with in singles or tags. Not even starting to scrape around or dig deep. That's top end, we could also then go into the merely "very solid ***1/2 - ***3/4" category and we get Doug Furnas, Dan Kroffat, Ricky Fuyuki, The Road Warriors, Bruiser Brody, Mil Mascaras, Manuel Soto, Gypsy Joe, Kevin Sullivan, Tommy Rich, Bob Roop, Bob Backlund, Horst Hoffman, Dos Caras, Pat O'Connor, Ken Mantell, Dick Murdoch, Fritz Von Erich, Abdullah the Butcher, The Sheik, Curt Hennig ... how deep do you want to go. He has the goods, he has more goods. Could do same with Flair. I don't see how you see this expectation of a GOAT candidate as "limiting". It's saying "wow, that's a GOAT career, this guy had it, this other guy over here, he didn't".

 

* See 10/21/86

[elliott]

Misawa, Kobashi, Jumbo, Taue, Hansen, Steve Williams, Gary Albright, Sasaki, Akiyama, Tenryu, Johnny Ace, Yuji Nagata, Masa Fuchi, Dan Kroffat, Doug Furnas, Terry Gordy, Takashi Iizuka, Yoshinari Ogawa, Kikuchi, Takao Omori, Yoshiaki Yatsu, Satoru Asako, Giant Baba, etc.

 

23 different guys for a wrestler who didn't travel at all over what is basically an 11 year stretch and I know I originally forgot stuff like the Kojima and Tenzan matches which got praise back in the day and I intentionally left off the Mutoh matches even though a lot of people really liked them. I'm also not up to speed on post 2002 Kawada which would probably add a few more guys to his case.

 

edit to note that I miscounted. I only named 23 guys originally. Tenzan and Kojima would bring it up to 25 but I did want to make note of that.

 

editing yet again to note that isn't a list of guys Kawada had 3 1/2 star or better matches with. Those would all be the 4star and above "high end" parameter that you noted with your Jumbo list.

[ohtani's jacket]

Of course Jumbo didn't have to travel much. The money was in Japan and people came to him. Jumbo was fortunate to work in an era where the Japanese economy was booming, where the territory system still existed, the promoters he worked for were still young and healthy and had connections to offices around the world, the TV stations were prepared to bankroll wrestling and put it on during golden time, and a shitload of Americans were in their primes. If Jumbo had needed to rely on Japanese talent to have great matches he would have been fucked because the best Japanese talent was in New Japan at the time. None of these things have anything to do with Jumbo's ability as a worker. If Jumbo had been born the same year as Misawa, Parv wouldn't think he was a GOAT candidate even if he had the exact same strengths as a worker.

 

What I'd really like to see Parv do is critique Jumbo. If Jumbo was so good then why did it take Choshu jumping ship for Jumbo to adapt to the changing wrestling landscape? How come even though Jumbo was a far superior worker to Choshu he was so slow to see the writing on the wall? If not for Tenryu would be have had a fire lit under his ass? If not for the younger generation would be have had a late career bloom? Credit to Jumbo for adapting but there seems to be extenuating circumstances that aren't being taken into consideration

[JerryvonKramer]

I guess my response is that "extenuating circumstances" are there, but I can't change them. I can't change what happened.

 

Flair was the NWA champ, Ted DiBiase wasn't. Maybe Ted could have been champ in 82 or 85. Could, shoulda, doesn't matter. He had the career he had and worked under the circumstances he did. Every worker is the same.

 

It might just be that pound for pound Barry Windham was the best and most naturally gifted worker ever to set foot in the ring. He had Barry Windham's career.

 

We can't rate on potential. We have to rate based on what happened.

 

The base value of a guy like Windham (or Ted, or any number of other guys) will get them so far and so high in rankings. But at some point, the career they had comes into play.

 

I mean Bob Backlund would not be making many ballots if Vince Sr didn't have a crazy plan to make that goofy shit champ for 6 years, but some of us will definitely have him on our lists -- I will. He was put in a position that many other more talented and better workers were not, and he has the matches to show for it. Not "fair", but then what can you do. What happened is what happened, just like what we have on tape is what we have on tape. The other stuff does not factor into the rating for me. Some guys got there by nepotism, some guys got there by politics and scheming, some guys were lucky, some guys were profoundly unlucky, some guys took drugs. None of it matters when answering the question.

 

Although I guess we have got to the heart of a distinction between:

 

1. Who is the best worker?

 

and

 

2. Who had the best career?

 

They aren't the same. For GOAT I'm looking for a combination of those two things. If I was rating purely based on who I think the most talented worker was, the list would look really different. And when I've tried to devise methods of looking just at workers divorced from their actual matches and careers it gained ... precisely zero traction. So I should be preaching to the converted on this.

[funkdoc]

I guess my response is that "extenuating circumstances" are there, but I can't change them. I can't change what happened.

 

in sports, we adjust for those extenuating circumstances. baseball is the only major team sport here that doesn't have a uniform playing field, so your sabermetrics types will absolutely dock hitters for playing in tiny ballparks that made home runs easy. that's a major reason the analytical crowd doesn't consider jim rice a legit HOFer even though his raw power-hitting numbers were among the very best for over 10 years.

 

i strongly believe in doing the same for any type of performance - i tend to think "if i were a promoter/general manager/what have you, would i be begging to have this guy?"

[Childs]

I think Parv's argument would be that Flair created his own context because he was so good. So it would be like Jim Rice killing it in a lesser hitting park and thus earning the right to take advantage of Fenway.

[Superstar Sleeze]

I think Ric Flair earned the right to be the NWA World Champion and should be rewarded likewise. Sometimes, I read these arguments like Flair was lucky to be in that position or had good fortune. Of course, there is luck that comes with any situation. He happened to be the perfect age to take over for Harley and not be so young that he missed waning days of the traveling champion. If he is older, he may have been Harley's 1a and if he was younger, Lord knows what would have happened. Flair earned that right and then thrived for the first half of his reign as a draw.

 

Bob Backlund is of course one of the most interesting cases in wrestling and in my opinion probably the most interesting. I think on the surface he did not earn the right to be WWF Champion and probably with more digging it would be hard to construct a case where you said he earned that championship before winning the title. Upon winning the title, there is no argument that can be made that tells me otherwise that he did not earn his keep week in and week out working that loop for six years.

 

I am of the belief that for the most part people earn these championships through hard work and good performances. Therefore winning a championship should not be construed good fortune, but as recognition of a Grade A wrestler. Yes, by winning a championship or consistently being a challenger means you are put in positions to have better matches and more impact on that card, business and general entertainment, but these are earned positions.

[shoe]

Something I thought Charles mentioned that was interesting is that looking at the garbage footage Flair came across as a more brawling, aggressive type worker. I mentioned this on the show I was on that this was a comfort zone of Flair. If Flair didn't get a run with the belt we would have seen this type of Flair. It does 't matter because this is all conjecture. Though when he worked with his old cronies from the Carolinas as champ this would come out. For example his matches with Wahoo.

[goodhelmet]

If he worked that way the entire time, he might be my #1