Fair for Flair: a mini-series

[elliott]

I understand your overall point even if I disagree with the criticisms of Dibiase and Taue (Dibiase had great matches and Taue was a talented worker).

 

I think my lack of understanding is because this and the Kawada thread are wedded in my brain and I view Kawada as a fellow reasonable candidate for #1 so I'm thinking about this career stuff in terms of #1 contenders who for me are Hansen, Lawler, Funk, Flair, Satanico, Casas, etc. AGuys who were long time main eventers who had the talent and opportunity and used that to produce great matches variety longevity etc. The #1 contenders have talent and output. Thats why they're #1 contenders.

 

Guys like Windham, Dibiase, Backlund, Taue, etc that you've brought up in this thread aren't guys I'd consider for #1 so I don't really see the point in comparing them to Flair unless it is to compare what a realistic #1 candidate looks like vs an unrealistic #1 candidate. So when I was asking about career I was hoping you'd elaborate more in terms of Flair vs Other #1 Candidates who were talented and had long careers full of great matches with a bunch of different people.

[ohtani's jacket]

The career thing should make ranking wrestlers a piece of cake.

 

If I want to vote for:

 

Adrian Adonis

Adrian Street

AJ Styles

Aja Kong

Alan Sarjeant

 

then it's obvious that I would rank them in this order:

 

Aja Kong

AJ Styles

Adrian Adonis

Adrian Street

Alan Sarjeant

 

The only interesting thing about careers is when people form an argument about them -- eg. this guy's career is overrated, this guy's is underrated, here's an unexplored part of so and so's career. Otherwise it's just towing the line and that's boring.

[Matt D]

EDIT:

 

Let's just respectfully say that I think we have more to gain from respecting a plurality of well-explained opinions than trying to force a single truth through when it comes to all sorts of things.

 

It'll make us all happier and stronger in the end.

[Loss]

That's not very nice.

[El-P]

Matt's post was funny as shit. Dark humour is good. Glad I saw it before the PC version.

[funkdoc]

dammit i missed matt's original post

 

i very much side with him on this. the reason i love this forum so much is that it's not full of boring canonlords, that it has people willing to completely redefine good and bad work. hope it stays that way!

[dawho5]

To be fair, Matt's original post was a bit over the top. I understand where it was coming from. I also think that that sort of thing is counterproductive to good discussion. I do agree with his point, especially the edited version.

[JerryvonKramer]

Don't really see how saying talent vs. output is a factor that everyone is going to have to consider is insisting on a single truth.

[Superstar Sleeze]

Re:Chops. Will directly said "wearing down your opponent". My football analogy existed to explain why the early chops would be no sold or take a little effect and over time they would have a greater impact.

 

Re: Perpetual Motion. Perpetual motion leverages Flair's natural cardio advantage but was not used to blow up opponents, but to constantly break their rhythm. He was constantly throwing shit at his opponents, knees, elbows, running the ropes all in hopes of landing the one blow that would allow to get firm control. I think the key unique competitive advantage of Flair was that he was constantly fighting back. Watching Race and Tully, they would bump for sustained periods of time. Flair always broke this up by fighting back. That is the distinction of the perpetual motion offense Flair did and other heels of the time.

[shoe]

Just started the Will show. Will talks about Sting and Nikita having mediocre matches with him as a reply to Parv bringing it up. Will mentions why the Nikita/Magnum matches were far superior to the Flair matches . Flair actually worked Nikita 1st in 85 when he was totally green. I think with Flair he never got out of his comfort zone or formula when working Nikita, or Sting because he always viewed them as that same green piece of talent. He felt this was the best way to present them. Right or wrong I feel that's how Flair viewed them and why they worked the broom stick match. Kind of like a parent views their son or daughter They'll always be their baby.

[jdw]

The cardio argument would be interesting if Ric was always the stronger wrestler at the end of matches. I'm not entirely sure that's the case in the core of his career. Faces tend to kick his ass late in matches.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

Episode No. 5 was a good listen, Parv and Will.

 

I viewed the discussion you guys had like a football team owner negotiating a new contract with his star quarterback. The owner realizes his QB is one of the best and his team is shit without him, but during negotiations, in order to try and save a a couple million bucks, the owner spotlights the QB's flaws and talks about how other QBs are better than him at certain things.

 

I viewed Will as the team owner on the podcast. He thinks Flair is an all-time great, but isn't willing to just cut him a blank check with no questions asked. Parv was the star QB. He thinks (knows?) Flair is the best and can't figure out why Will (and others) harp on Flair's perceived flaws instead of his multiple MVP awards and Super Bowl titles.

 

Nine times out 10, the team owner and star QB reach a deal, and all remains well. Parv might not have convinced Will to rank Flair No. 1 and Will might not have talked Parv out of ranking Flair in his top spot, but in the end, all remains well and rest of us got some insightful discussion out of it.

[JazeUSA]

Flair is a top 3 lock guaranteed for me! To many top notch performances, to much peak longevity, no one nominated anywhere has more top notch performances against a wider range of opponents, it is silly to even debate this

[Grimmas]

Flair is a top 3 lock guaranteed! To many top notch performances, to much peak longevity, no one nominated anywhere has more top notch performances against a wider range of opponents, it is silly to even debate this

It is silly to have him 4-10 on my list?

 

Also I think Negro Casas probably has as many top notch performances against a wider range of opponents. Not to mention Lawler.

[JazeUSA]

 

Flair is a top 3 lock guaranteed! To many top notch performances, to much peak longevity, no one nominated anywhere has more top notch performances against a wider range of opponents, it is silly to even debate this

It is silly to have him 4-10 on my list?

 

Also I think Negro Casas probably has as many top notch performances against a wider range of opponents. Not to mention Lawler.

 

not to me but to some probably, but I dont think Lawlers range was as high as Flairs, I just cant give that kind of credit to a guy who stayed in Memphis 90% of his career, Lawler will be high on my list but he won't be Flair high, Negro Casas may indeed be a better debate, but I will be the first to admit I'm not very fluent with Lucha stuff but I have seen very high praise from many others here about him

[Grimmas]

 

 

Flair is a top 3 lock guaranteed! To many top notch performances, to much peak longevity, no one nominated anywhere has more top notch performances against a wider range of opponents, it is silly to even debate this

It is silly to have him 4-10 on my list?

 

Also I think Negro Casas probably has as many top notch performances against a wider range of opponents. Not to mention Lawler.

 

not to me but to some probably, but I dont think Lawlers range was as high as Flairs, I just cant give that kind of credit to a guy who stayed in Memphis 90% of his career, Lawler will be high on my list but he won't be Flair high, Negro Casas may indeed be a better debate, but I will be the first to admit I'm not very fluent with Lucha stuff but I have seen very high praise from many others here about him

 

He had the range of opponents as Flair did though, so how does him having a home territory even matter?

[JerryvonKramer]

The main issue I had with Will on part 5 is that he was talking as if Lawler's matches with Bigelow, Mantell, etc. etc. were the equivalent of Flair vs. Garvin or Flair vs. Windham or whatever.

 

For him they might be, but judging by the fact that Flair vs. Koko Ware, a match that wasn't in Pete's Top 20 Flair matches, finished 8th on Memphis DVDR project ranking, I'm not sure if consensus would hold that those Lawler "range" matches WERE the equivalent of Flair's. A match that isn't in Flair's top 20 for the decade, finished 8th in Lawler's backyard.

 

I did not put this to Will directly, but I was hinting at it. And he had a built-in defense, which is that Flair was working cream of the crop (for the record, he said Koko was a "great worker" in Memphis, so I guess he's cream too), whereas Lawler was working lesser guys. To me that just doesn't matter, Flair's top 20 > Lawler's for most people. That's what I care about. It's because Flair was the NWA champ whereas Lawler was the champ of a territory that was never that well respected and so couldn't attract the top top workers. For Will he puts more stock into getting more out of less. For me it's like being the best player in a struggling mid-table football team, that's Lawler. Flair is more like the best player on the best football team setting all the goal-scoring records.

 

For me that makes Flair a definitive Goat whereas Lawler is more like a relative Goat. I don't like relative, I like definitive. To me Will's argument was saying "well, if you change the goalposts and make all sorts of excuses and qualifications, then Lawler is best". I was saying "if you just take things straight-up, doesn't matter about circumstances, Flair is best, he doesn't need excuses, he has the goods". Something like this. I don't think either of us are likely to be much swayed from our positions at this point.

[elliott]

I did not put this to Will directly, but I was hinting at it. And he had a built-in defense, which is that Flair was working cream of the crop (for the record, he said Koko was a "great worker" in Memphis, so I guess he's cream too), whereas Lawler was working lesser guys. To me that just doesn't matter, Flair's top 20 > Lawler's for most people. That's what I care about. It's because Flair was the NWA champ whereas Lawler was the champ of a territory that was never that well respected and so couldn't attract the top top workers. For Will he puts more stock into getting more out of less. For me it's like being the best player in a struggling mid-table football team, that's Lawler. Flair is more like the best player on the best football team setting all the goal-scoring records.

 

 

I'm wondering if you can talk about why you needed to see Kawada's and other GOATC matches against scrubs to see how they did against guys who weren't great but "...Lawler was working lesser guys. To me that just doesn't matter Flair's top 20 > Lawler's for most people. That's what I care about."

 

Why does Lawler having great matches against not as great competition not matter to you at all as a comp vs Flair because Flair's top 20 was better but with Kawada (who arguably has a better top 20) you absolutely HAD to see the matches against other guys?

 

Also, this part specifically

"Flair's top 20 > Lawler's for most people. That's what I care about."

 

(Underlining added for emphasis because this is where my question comes in.

 

Are you saying what you care about is that most people think Flair's top 20 > Lawler's therefore Flair's is better? I don't think it is what you're saying but the way it is worded, I wanted to be clear?

[Grimmas]

I really disagree with just picking each guys top 20 matches and then adding up star ratings as a way to rank your list. That completely ignores great performances, longevity, in ring charisma, quality of opponents, etc...

[elliott]

I really disagree with just picking each guys top 20 matches and then adding up star ratings as a way to rank your list. That completely ignores great performances, longevity, in ring charisma, quality of opponents, etc...

 

100% agree.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

I did not put this to Will directly, but I was hinting at it. And he had a built-in defense, which is that Flair was working cream of the crop (for the record, he said Koko was a "great worker" in Memphis, so I guess he's cream too), whereas Lawler was working lesser guys. To me that just doesn't matter, Flair's top 20 > Lawler's for most people. That's what I care about. It's because Flair was the NWA champ whereas Lawler was the champ of a territory that was never that well respected and so couldn't attract the top top workers. For Will he puts more stock into getting more out of less. For me it's like being the best player in a struggling mid-table football team, that's Lawler. Flair is more like the best player on the best football team setting all the goal-scoring records.

 

I'm wondering if you can talk about why you needed to see Kawada's and other GOATC matches against scrubs to see how they did against guys who weren't great but "...Lawler was working lesser guys. To me that just doesn't matter Flair's top 20 > Lawler's for most people. That's what I care about."

 

Well, because I do want to see range. Not just great matches against the same group of elite workers. I think this is entirely consistent. The point I was making is that Flair vs. Garvin and vs. Windham are matches in the region of ****3/4 whereas the Lawler ones vs. Mantell and Bigelow (for example) aren't in that sort of ball park. It's not just range, it's range at that top ****3/4+ level. And then a whole boatload of ****1/2 under that.

 

Why does Lawler having great matches against not as great competition not matter to you at all as a comp vs Flair because Flair's top 20 was better but with Kawada (who arguably has a better top 20) you absolutely HAD to see the matches against other guys?

It boils down to "how great" are those matches. It seems that's the point that isn't clear. Is Lawler vs. Mantell *really* the equivalent of Flair vs. Garvin?

 

Also, this part specifically

"Flair's top 20 > Lawler's for most people. That's what I care about."

 

(Underlining added for emphasis because this is where my question comes in.

 

Are you saying what you care about is that most people think Flair's top 20 > Lawler's therefore Flair's is better? I don't think it is what you're saying but the way it is worded, I wanted to be clear?

I'm saying that "even taking into account the manifold complexities of subjective value judgements ..." Flair's Top 20 is better than Lawler's. And that matters.

 

I really disagree with just picking each guys top 20 matches and then adding up star ratings as a way to rank your list. That completely ignores great performances, longevity, in ring charisma, quality of opponents, etc...

It's more than 20 matches, and if a guy HAD 20 Great matches to his name -- by which I mean ****1/2+ range, then he is bound to also have great performances, etc. etc. too.

 

It's not my only criteria, but it is very important in the 1-5 range of candidate. At some point you have to say "where are your goods? Put them on the table?"

 

Great performances, charisma, amazing basics etc. can get guys so far. It will get guys like Arn Anderson and William Regal very far. But those guys aren't in 1-5 conversation precisely because they don't have that list of 20 GREAT matches. Great meaning "some of the greatest matches ever". It's why the top 10 candidates are who they are, and I'm not really sure how you could dispute that.

 

NB. Specifically defending positions I outlined on these shows in these posts.

[KrisZ]

Come on Parv you can't use the DVDVR ranking of Flair/Koko as a selling point.......look at how high Flair/Bock ranked on the AWA set.......biases come into play......Koko is great though but still it placed way higher than it should've

[JerryvonKramer]

Come on Parv you can't use the DVDVR ranking of Flair/Koko as a selling point.......look at how high Flair/Bock ranked on the AWA set.......biases come into play......Koko is great though but still it placed way higher than it should've

I'm actually interested by this point Kris. Are you saying that most voters are just biased towards ranking Flair high on these sets?

 

To me, DVDR rankings do mean something because it's saying "of these guys who have all watched at least 150 matches from this promotion [which requires a certain amount of interest, knowledge and commitment], they thought it was this good". It carries weight with me. Do you think it shouldn't?

[Childs]

I'm not staking a position on this issue because I haven't thought about it with any care, but there was a feeling among the DVDVR committees that Flair matches skewed high in the final rankings because of Flair's fame/familiarity. Do with that what you will, but it's not a new talking point.

[Loss]

I remember very much thinking the opposite was true for the Mid South set. In fact, in real time, people who were trucking along at a quick pace seemed to slow way down when confronted with long Flair matches, and were less enthusiastic about watching than they had been to that point. So if he skewed high, I personally don't think it was familiarity bias at work, because people didn't seem too excited about watching his matches when they came along. I wish the threads still existed so I could link to them to support that.