Lawler's punch vs. Flair's chop

[JerryvonKramer]

What exactly was the point of this thread GOTNW? I'm really disappointed with the level of discussion here.

[MoS]

I would pick Lawler's punches, simply because aesthetically, Lawler punching and breaking down his opponents looks so much more beautiful to me than Flair's chops. I don't like chops in general, so there is that.

[El-P]

Most Lawler fans just like his punches enough that it's not an issue.

 

I like his punches a lot. I just wished he would not over-rely on it like he always did.

[JerryvonKramer]

I would pick Lawler's punches, simply because aesthetically, Lawler punching and breaking down his opponents looks so much more beautiful to me than Flair's chops. I don't like chops in general, so there is that.

The question was how multi-faceted and deeply layered a single spot was. I don't really see that being discussed or engaged with in any meaningful way.

[GOTNW]

 

What exactly was the point of this thread GOTNW? I'm really disappointed with the level of discussion here.

I was hoping someone from Lawler's side would step up but that has yet to happen. I chose him specifically because there is somewhat of a divide between those who see him as #1 and those who see Flair as #1, whille, say, Terry Funk is loved in both groups so inserting someone like him or Hansen or whomever wouldn't be quite the same, and I I don't think their work is categorized by a single strike like Lawler's is.

 

 

To me the big problem with Flair's chops is that they just don't look that good. I can't really buy into the "Flair=best chopper" narrative, especially when the first thing you did in the previous thread was move the discussion towards "workers who happened to use a chop" and your arguments that followed are some I'm sure you have/would use when talking about him as a worked in general. I wouldn't see it as much different if someone wrote out all the things Randy Orton's punch accomplishes in a match (though that would be more of an argument for what it accomplishes in modern WWE style, but, he's just an example). Sure, but the means he uses just aren't that good.

 

I also think you're obviously overreaching by saying stuff like this:

 

2. Chop as a wear down tactic. It's meant to take the breath and wind out. Picture a big stiff chop in the corner.

 

3. Chop as an annoyance tactic. Especially against a bigger opponent. Picture Nikita getting increasingly pissed off.

 

10. Chop as a mind game. This is especially important in the longer matches. Flair might have been getting his ass kicked for twenty minutes and then he still goes and pulls a huge stiff chop out and it's a mind fuck. A lot of Flair as champ psychology is about playing with hope and then taking away hope.

 

asking people to buy into your own interpretations of Flair matches. And hey-maybe some will. But it's a lot less tangible than some of the other points you brought up.

[JerryvonKramer]

Well, any stab at in-depth analysis of Flair matches, or talking about his psychology or whatever -- which me, and Chad, and Charles, and many others have done for hours and hours -- is routinely just dismissed as over-reaching by detractors. And then they blithely go on trotting out the same tired criticisms and treat any spot he does as a mindless cheap pop.

 

You understand why we get frustrated?

 

As for this thread, I don't think Lawler's punch is really in the conversation in terms of wringing multiple different things from the same spot. Misawa's elbow seems to be the closest I can think of in terms of traversing different registers. But intelligent conversation seems beyond us in these heady GWE days, so let's forget it.

[El-P]

Maybe people are just not convinced by hours and hours of over-reaching after all.

[JerryvonKramer]

Well there it is. I'm done talking Flair at this point. For now and ever.

[MoS]

I don't think either the Lawler punch or the Flair chop is multi-layered. I think both are just a simple offensive spot used to nove things along; like a lot of offensive spots, they can be used in multiple situations. So, it just comes down to the aesthetics for me.

 

I recognise that some criticisms of Flaur are stupid, but when the man himself says that most of what he did, he did just to pop the audience, then you can hardly blame people for calling his spots that, and thinking your in-depth analysis of Flair's chops are hugely reaching. I watched Flair-Sting and Flair-Garvin yesterday, and I couldn't see any of the layers in his chops. Maybe I need to rewatch them.

 

I am not saying you can't have your own interpretation of those chops, but it is hardly as if they conclusively debunk the tired criticism that frustrate you. I am sure if you tried really hard, you could also see the Flair flop as a clever strategic move to lull his opponent into a false sense of security and underestimate Naitch, but ultimately, it's still a stock spot, which some hate and some don't mind.

[GOTNW]

 

Well, any stab at in-depth analysis of Flair matches, or talking about his psychology or whatever -- which me, and Chad, and Charles, and many others have done for hours and hours -- is routinely just dismissed as over-reaching by detractors. And then they blithely go on trotting out the same tired criticisms and treat any spot he does as a mindless cheap pop.

 

You understand why we get frustrated?

Sure, but you made ten points. I highlighted three. When you look at those three points more closely do you not see where I'm coming from? I found some of your other points quite interesting.

 

 

I am sure WIll or someone else could bring up 25 things they think Lawler's punches accomplish. My point is, even if we strip them down and we're left with, say, 5:7, if one accomplishes those five things better than the other accomplishes his seven things that's a perfectly valid reason to go with the first one. And I have no idea which ratio we'd end up with and in whose favour would it be.

[JerryvonKramer]

I just don't think Lawler's punches are a single spot. I think they are many different spots. The way he feeds a babyface comeback as a heel is not the same spot as when he makes a comeback as a babyface. When he's doing a Tazmanian Devil style flurry against Bock, it isn't the same as the straight right jab he might do in the body of a match. He has an arsenal of different punches, not just one punch which is the same and used in different contexts.

 

Misawa's elbows are mostly always the same, but they are utilised to different ends and traverse different registers.

[Loss]

Flair-Bret thread, part 438. This stuff is completely zapping the joy of this board for me.

[jamesie_2015]

 

I like the idea of what you said before about variance in Flair's chops, but I've never picked up on any of that. Likewise, I've never seen the level of nuance in Flair's work in general that others have raved about. On the other hand, I love Lawler's punches and I feel like he adjusts them to milk dramatic moments in a way that is very gratifying. There's somewhat of a catharsis to them which I think is in large part to Lawler's timing as the same effect is there when he is working heel and on the receiving end of a comeback flurry from somewhat like Dundee.

One function of criticism is to open up people's eyes to things they didn't see before.

 

1. Chop at start of match that says "come on, you're in the ring with the champ now". It's a little wake up call, and a statement of intent.

 

2. Chop as a wear down tactic. It's meant to take the breath and wind out. Picture a big stiff chop in the corner.

 

3. Chop as an annoyance tactic. Especially against a bigger opponent. Picture Nikita getting increasingly pissed off.

 

4. Chop as method of getting over superiority of opponent. Picture Flair hitting Taker, say, and finding it has zero effect, trying again and then backing up and begging off, the hope in his face draining away.

 

5. Chop as a comeback. Especially when he's babyface, of course.

 

6. Chop as invite to chop exchange. One of the cool things about the Flair chop is that it invites a reply. This is where an exchange can start. And this can go in a number of ways, straight up manly exchange (see Tenryu match) or with either guy coming out on top and transitioning to something else.

 

7. Chop as feed to babyface comeback. Primary usage, more of a hint of desperation here. Think about that for a second, the same move he uses for his own comeback, also feeds a babyface comeback.

 

8. Chop as demonstration of total superiority. This is bully Flair kicking the shit out of Ricky Morton or whatever.

 

9. Chop as a pop to the crowd. This is when he hits it and woos and the crowd woo back.

 

10. Chop as a mind game. This is especially important in the longer matches. Flair might have been getting his ass kicked for twenty minutes and then he still goes and pulls a huge stiff chop out and it's a mind fuck. A lot of Flair as champ psychology is about playing with hope and then taking away hope.

 

That's what I see. I hope this will enrich other people's experiences of watching Flair matches.

I love shit like this. Don't ever stop talking Flair.

[JAC]

Well, any stab at in-depth analysis of Flair matches, or talking about his psychology or whatever -- which me, and Chad, and Charles, and many others have done for hours and hours -- is routinely just dismissed as over-reaching by detractors. And then they blithely go on trotting out the same tired criticisms and treat any spot he does as a mindless cheap pop.

 

You understand why we get frustrated?

 

As for this thread, I don't think Lawler's punch is really in the conversation in terms of wringing multiple different things from the same spot. Misawa's elbow seems to be the closest I can think of in terms of traversing different registers. But intelligent conversation seems beyond us in these heady GWE days, so let's forget it.

 

I think your comparison with Misawa's elbow may be the most interesting possible point for discussion. Misawa can and does use his elbow strikes for the various reasons you outlined in relation to Flair's chops. But Misawa's elbow has one further use: it can be a match-ending strike. And not just as a secondary finisher--it's been used, when all else has failed, to end some of his most epic matches. I don't think a Flair chop has ever ended a match. Ditto a Kobashi chop. I'm a little hazier on Lawler, but I'm thinking that just about any match-ending Lawler punch has been augmented by a chain or brass knuckles.

 

Another nifty thing that distinguishes Misawa's elbows are that he clearly throws them with varying degrees of effort to get different results. An elbow to stun an opponent so he can take control may more of less be thrown like a jab. Stronger elbows involve a little backswing of the arm, some rotation of the hips. The strongest elbows are accompanied by a running start, big-time hip rotation or even a cyclonic motion of the body to generate momentum. It seems that throwers of elbows nowadays don't work as hard to convey how hard a particular elbow strike is. Everything tends to look like a simple elbow jab.

[MoS]

I just don't think Lawler's punches are a single spot. I think they are many different spots. The way he feeds a babyface comeback as a heel is not the same spot as when he makes a comeback as a babyface. When he's doing a Tazmanian Devil style flurry against Bock, it isn't the same as the straight right jab he might do in the body of a match. He has an arsenal of different punches, not just one punch which is the same and used in different contexts.Misawa's elbows are mostly always the same, but they are utilised to different ends and traverse different registers.

See, I thought of this topic as Lawler's "punches" v. Flair's chops. I thought all his punches were being collated into one spot. The way you say this is interesting; I am tempted to go watch my collection of Lawler-Dundee to see which punch he uses in what scenario.

[Iron Anderson]

The great thing about a well executed chop is it plays to the entire arena. A series of stiff chops also registers visibly where punches don't. It's part of the magic in the work so to speak.

 

Organically working chops into a match as opposed to performing chops hoping they will work are two different things. If that makes any sense.

[DR Ackermann]

That must be why you can hear the entire MSC crowd reacting right on time to each of Lawler's punches.

[goc]

Yea I've never heard a crowd come unglued for chops the way they would for Lawler's punches after dropping the strap. Heck, or even Hogan's punches after a Hulk Up.

[Matt D]

The way they would ANTICIPATE Lothario's punch in Houston?

[Cap]

I like the topic, but I don't know that one is better than the other, honestly. If you are talking about them from these two guys I think the chops may JUST edge out the punches in terms of the different readings and meanings registered, but the punches sort of pick with the diverse number different punches that add their own layers.

 

As discussed earlier, Flairs chops come throughout the match in a variety of ways and they serve multiple purposes. I am particularly drawn to how good they are at getting over opponents (JVK #4) and the chop as a way of moving into a comeback (#5 and 7). I would add (or maybe group in with the latter two) that one of the chop's must interesting functions is that change of pace. It can reset a match that has started to lag or lose direction. It can pick up the pace or slow down the pace. It can be a way for him to turn the tides for himself or his opponent weather he is heel or face. All this of course depends on how he throws them, where he throws them, and how he and his opponent respond to one anther after each. That ability to reset and transition is one of the things I value most in wrestling. Sometimes a match gets off to a rough start and two people are just off or the pace never got set and the great ones can fix that. Flair was definitely able to do that and part of it was how well he was able to use the simple move so strategically.

 

As much as I love the 2000s indy boom, I do feel like that point was missed when many of those guys were adopting chops early. Another thing to consider is that many of those folks seemed more influenced by Kobashi's use of chops than flairs (exception being Am Dragon and how he would use chops in a match). That really demonstrates the point that the way Flair used chops gave them a great deal of depth.

 

Lawler's punches have a similar but different set of strengths I think. I recently started getting into Lawler in Memphis so my ideas aren't really fully formed on his punches, but over about a month or so I went from kind of rolling my eyes at Lawler and his minimalist offense to being a really big fan. He won me over through the course of watching lots of matches, particularly the higher end stuff. For me though, it was the Bam Bam match that really got me with him. Even though I think at least two of the Dundee matches were better, The Bam Bam match might be the best example of how incredibly diverse Lawler's punches are in terms of function and meaning. Of course he throws multiples kinds of punches (we know this) and that gives him some advantages over the chop (at best it isn't thrown half as many different ways). The punches though - as far as meaning and different ways of reading them - tend to lend themselves to the brawling psychology. Perhaps that is obvious but if you think about the different things the punches do I think they play more into producing a great brawl, while the chops probably do a little more in a longer NWA championship style match. For example (and this is my limited knowledge of Lawler), Chops....

 

1) Help get the opponent over through no selling or through surviving those famous Lawler punches

 

2) Get the audience amped for his comebacks

 

3) Get blood and in turn creating some of those visuals that are often important to the brawl

 

4) Target blood, adding a viciousness to a good brawl and forwarding more brawl specific psychology

 

5) Break noses, again the psychology of a brawl. If you want your opponent to have trouble breathing and get some of that exhaustion you get after 45 minutes of a longer match, one way to do that is target the nose. I always thought - even when it isn't explicitly discussed - that was part of the psychology of a brawl

 

6) Finish fights - a perfectly placed and timed punch always sort of seems like a reasonable ending in these contexts.

 

7) Bring out the chicken shit in the heel - begging off the strike itself.

 

8) Inviting the sprint slugfest. Obviously this is very similar to the point about inviting the chop exchange, but once again I think the slug fest is a different thing. The chop fest makes more sense in a longer match as a punctuation or transition point. The slug fest can do that but I tend to think of it more often than not like the abandoning of game plans and the throwing of bombs. It can manifest itself quite differently too.

 

9) Impact on a worked limb.

 

I am sure people more familiar with Lawler's work could name a few more. The point is, I think it probably does about as many things as Flair's chop (the count is actually completely irrelevant to me), but each means more within the context of what they are trying to produce. Each gains layers of meaning and wrinkles when they are used in context. Each can serve unique and interesting roles out of context too. Lawler's punches are really maximized in a brawl setting, but when he isn't facing a brawler they serve different purposes (maybe more limiting, maybe not). For example, Lawler was so good at using 10 different kinds of punches to the point where they don't feel like a singular move too, which really helps him get the most out of his "punch" in a given match. However, in some cases I felt his "limitation" stood out a bit more if he was wrestling someone using a more diverse offense. Not all the time, but sometimes.

 

This isn't to say that Flair's chops don't work well in a brawl. They most certainly do as we saw countless times, but I don't think they have the depth Lawler's punches do in that setting and I think Lawler's punches lose some depth when he is taken out of that brawling setting and into a more 80s wrestling match.

 

Ultimately, I think it is more interesting to look at how each fits within the style and what each can do than to pick one. I get the point, but picking kind of feels like picking between bands from different genres to me. Right now I would probably pick Lawler's punch, but that is because I am pretty into brawls right now and I watched a punch of Lawler recently. A month ago it would have been Flair's chops. A month from now it might be Flair's chops again. Plus, since Lawler uses 20+ different kinds of punches it is kind of like comparing Flair's one more to Lawler's entire offense (which I don't buy is all that limited). Both are interesting case studies for the value of minimalism in one's offense and attention to storytelling, masters classes in the topic really.

 

As a side, I think that Flair vs Lawler match from 8/14/82 is probably the best example of how versatile both can be in the right matchup.

[elliott]

I'm glad I took the time to write up the nuances of the different varieties of Flair chop ...

 

You can easily argue that Lawler uses his punches to do all of those same things as well though. Literally all of those same things. Plus he can use a punch to finish a match which Flair never did with his chops. Lawler could also use literally no offense other than his punches and craft a great match which I never saw Flair do with his chops.

 

I get your argument about Flair's chop being one specific spot whereas "Lawler's Punch" cover a variety of different things: jabs, haymakers, uppercuts, etc. But that's exactly why I voted Lawler's punch. It could be a ton of different things. Flairs chop is Flairs chop. He could use it in a variety of ways, sure. But it was still Flair's chop. If the question if "FLair's Chop vs Lawler's Right Hook" I'd laugh and roll my eyes. But the question is Flair's Chop vs Lawler's Punch. Well, I know what FLair's chop is. But Lawler does a lot of different punches and uses them in a ton of different ways depending on opponent, setting, etc. So sure, Flair might be able to use his chop for a bunch different reasons and that's impressive. But Lawler did more with his punch than Flair did with his chop. Way more.

 

Lawler wins for me in a cakewalk. (And I love Flair chopping the shit out of dudes for the record.)

[JerryvonKramer]

I said this:

 

I'm not sure if there is another move in wrestling as multilayered as Flair's chop, in terms of how many different things it can do in the course of a match. I'd have to think.

So the terms of the poll weren't exactly fair were they. It should have been "Flair's Chop vs Lawler's Right Hook". Or what I actually suggested: Flair's chop vs. Misawa's elbow. Which is a much closer comparison.

 

I mean Flair uses a shit ton of other spots: rabbit punches, open handed slap, punch to the gut, etc. etc., we aren't factoring those because we're not talking about an entire arsenal of offense, just one spot.

[elliott]

I said this:

 

I'm not sure if there is another move in wrestling as multilayered as Flair's chop, in terms of how many different things it can do in the course of a match. I'd have to think.

So the terms of the poll weren't exactly fair were they. It should have been "Flair's Chop vs Lawler's Right Hook". Or what I actually suggested: Flair's chop vs. Misawa's elbow. Which is a much closer comparison.

 

I mean Flair uses a shit ton of other spots: rabbit punches, open handed slap, punch to the gut, etc. etc., we aren't factoring those because we're not talking about an entire arsenal of offense, just one spot.

 

 

Right. We're factoring in "Lawler's Punch vs Flair's Chop." "Lawler's Punch" can be more things and do more things than "Flair's chop" and therefore is going to get my vote in a poll like this. If the poll is wack, then who gives a shit? Both things are awesome anyway.

 

Also, I think Misawa's elbows are probably closer to Lawler's punches for the simple fact that Misawa won matches with his elbow and would use it in more ways than Flair's chop (Misawa would dive through the ropes for an elbow, come off the top, do the rolling elbow, get a running start, etc.).

[jdw]

Who had "Less than 20 hours" in the pool? Jerome?

[Zenjo]

Chops are legal. Punches are illegal.

 

You don't have to use your imagination with a chop.

 

For every Lawler there's dozens of guys who throw shitty punches.