"He's ambitiously stupid" - Why Scott Keith's new book is scary bad

[NintendoLogic]

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with Phil's ratings. It's just that most people aren't as big fans of things like endless stalling and jaw-jacking with the crowd on the house mic, so it's something to keep in mind if you want to cite him as a match rating authority.

[goodhelmet]

When I make the super Lawler comp, it will make a strong case for GOAT. Lawler really benefits from being a great worker in the last yen years when only Tenryu has been able to sustain that momentum from guys who regularly worked in the 70s.

[Matt D]

I just watched 8/13/93 MSG in context (Both all the tv of the time and yeah I just saw a Smoking Guns vs Headshrinkers match before it which wasn't great, I can assure you, but 123 Kid Vs Doink was at least a lot of fun once it got going) and the wrestling is actually really good. Lawler is masterful and there's only one chain bs spot out of 3-4 that bugs me. That Danny Davis is such a hawk on him makes it better than the last hyper chain match I saw (the unification vs KVE). I think it was very, very functional in helping to get Lawler over in front of the core audience and he is masterful how he works the crowd. Macho has a pretty heated comeback and the cut off towards the end is very good and builds on the match up until then.

 

The Hart intervention that ends it completely fits what's going on at the time and the tension between Hart and Macho at the end is both well executed and one of those "not on tv" moments you pay to go to house shows to see.

 

That said, while it's a super functional match and probably the RIGHT match in that it makes Lawler look really good because Macho gets cut off so thoroughly and Hart's the one who gets his hands on Lawler for the finish, I don't think I'd call it a great match. It needed just a little more meat in the ending sequence. I totally see why it didn't get it though and in some ways, in context, it's all the more impressive (and Savage more giving) for it.

[Dylan Waco]

I have become less of a fan of Lawler after watching the 1990 Yearbook, sadly. I still think he's a great wrestler, who at his best is as good as all but a handful of guys ever. I still enjoy him and always will. But I don't like that on promos, he treats most of his opponents as nothing happening losers who aren't even worthy of his time, because it makes me less excited to see the upcoming match. Also, I'm willing to watch those WWF house show matches with an open mind, but if any of them involve Lawler talking on the house mic during the match or hiding a non-existent foreign object, I'm not likely to enjoy them all that much. I am suspecting that they all do, but we'll see.

I think this is interesting because you are so high on Lawler v. Snowman

[Dylan Waco]

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with Phil's ratings. It's just that most people aren't as big fans of things like endless stalling and jaw-jacking with the crowd on the house mic, so it's something to keep in mind if you want to cite him as a match rating authority.

My advice is not to cite anyone, ever as a match rating authority. In this day and age the access is there. Watch the matches and give thoughts yourself.

 

I think Matt's point was more to point to quality matches that Lawler had in WWF though I don't want to speak for him.

[Dylan Waco]

When I make the super Lawler comp, it will make a strong case for GOAT. Lawler really benefits from being a great worker in the last yen years when only Tenryu has been able to sustain that momentum from guys who regularly worked in the 70s.

When I think of GOAT's now I tend to think of Funk, Lawler, Tenryu and Casas. They have the versatility, peak and longevity. I wouldn't knock anyone who has Flair at one and I still regard him highly relative to some, but like Loss sees more flaws in Lawler with time, I see more flaws with Flair.

[Matt D]

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with Phil's ratings. It's just that most people aren't as big fans of things like endless stalling and jaw-jacking with the crowd on the house mic, so it's something to keep in mind if you want to cite him as a match rating authority.

My advice is not to cite anyone, ever as a match rating authority. In this day and age the access is there. Watch the matches and give thoughts yourself.

 

I think Matt's point was more to point to quality matches that Lawler had in WWF though I don't want to speak for him.

 

I mainly wanted to point out that there are quality matches and ones that aren't necessarily as well remembered/watched as his TV/PPV efforts because they were on fanshot house shows, but that they are important to include. One thing I've learned from watching a lot of WWF in the 80s/early 90s is that it's the MSG/Boston/Copps/Philly shows where you really learn the most.

[goodhelmet]

When I make the super Lawler comp, it will make a strong case for GOAT. Lawler really benefits from being a great worker in the last yen years when only Tenryu has been able to sustain that momentum from guys who regularly worked in the 70s.

When I think of GOAT's now I tend to think of Funk, Lawler, Tenryu and Casas. They have the versatility, peak and longevity. I wouldn't knock anyone who has Flair at one and I still regard him highly relative to some, but like Loss sees more flaws in Lawler with time, I see more flaws with Flair.

 

I liked Flair's retirement match and a match or two from his WWE run but it definitely hurt. Living in Russo land in WCW's dying days hurts also. However, Flair was so great in the 1980s, similar to Jumbo, it put him in the conversation on that decade alone. I would put Fujinami in that class as well as guys like Rey (last decade or so) and Buddy Rose. Other guys like El Hijo del Santo and Blue Panther have had tons of great matches across decades but not as consistently great as Lawler in my opinion. When the yearbooks and DVDVR 80s projects are done, I think another GOAT poll would be nice since we would have a good 40 years of recorded footage to draw from with more exposure to matches than ever before. Hell, I feel like we are 2 80s sets removed from finding another guy to put in the GOAT conversation.

[EricR]

I'm surprised people aren't giving Lawler credit for his Elimination Chamber 2011 match with Miz. I was there live and it was a great performance that the crowd was insanely into. People clearly wanted a title change and it was compelling enough that I legit thought we were seeing a title change. Even Meltzer thought they should have called an audible. Awesome match, my favorite live match of the last few years.

[NintendoLogic]

I thought Miz/Lawler was worked well, but it wasn't worked smart. Miz had no credibility as champion, and to most of the audience, Lawler was a 60-yaer-old announcer. So it made no sense to treat Lawler like an up-and-comer who was getting the rub just by being able to hang with the mighty Miz. But that was a problem with the booking and not the workers.

[Eduardo]

I'm surprised people aren't giving Lawler credit for his Elimination Chamber 2011 match with Miz. I was there live and it was a great performance that the crowd was insanely into. People clearly wanted a title change and it was compelling enough that I legit thought we were seeing a title change. Even Meltzer thought they should have called an audible. Awesome match, my favorite live match of the last few years.

Great match.

 

Also, the mini-Royal Rumble that set up Lawler as the number one contender was really good. Super fun match.

[soup23]

Really love the Lawler/Miz match also and probably put it along with the Lawler/Doctor vs. Dundee/Doctor tag as my favorite stuff from Lawler from 2008 onward.

 

Really wish someone would have edited the Michael Cole Wrestlemania match as the crowd was poised to pop for Lawler but the match went on for so long that it really killed most of the card until HHH vs. Taker.

[Matt D]

Honestly? What hurt me the most with Flair was A) more and more matches being easily available and his shoot. It was very much a pull back of the curtain and it opened my eyes to negative elements of his wrestling that I had been glossing over. I can't "unsee" them now, if that makes any sense.

[goc]

When I make the super Lawler comp, it will make a strong case for GOAT. Lawler really benefits from being a great worker in the last yen years when only Tenryu has been able to sustain that momentum from guys who regularly worked in the 70s.

Please tell me this is not too far down the list of comps you plan to make.

[JerryvonKramer]

That Flair has flaws is undeniable but are they enough to discount him from being the GOAT?

 

I've said it before: no one else in the history of wrestling faced a greater variety of opponents over such a long period of time and in so many places. Look at the #150 results from all of the DVDR sets to date -- Flair is in the top 15 in almost every territotry including All Japan.

 

The fact he was having great matches in the 1970s and arguably had one or two great matches in the 2000s just adds to his case. Funk, Lawler, Jumbo, etc. can't compete with Flair's career because it's one of a kind. Beyond comparison almost. I've said it before -- he's akin to being something like the Bob Dylan of wrestling. Dylan had his fair share of shitty albums, but no one else has a career to match that. No one else has that sort of range, variety and longevity. You can take bands or artists with shorter careers and say that they were more consistent -- The Smiths, for example, arguably only released great albums with very little shit. But all The Smiths albums kinda sound the same and there are only 4 of them.

 

The analogy isn't perfect, but I think Flair bests 90% of other contenders on that basis. I honestly think that Terry Funk is the only other guy in the conversation.

[Matt D]

I've said it before: no one else in the history of wrestling faced a greater variety of opponents over such a long period of time and in so many places. Look at the #150 results from all of the DVDR sets to date -- Flair is in the top 15 in almost every territotry including All Japan.

No one else in the history of wrestling faced a greater variety of opponents over such a long period of time and in so many places and did the same three matches over and over again.

 

I'm partially kidding, but only partially. It's an argument.

[Loss]

It always goes back to Flair. I've made myself clear on this one in the past. I don't think he's more repetitive than anyone else at that level. I just think we've seen more of him than we have of anyone else, so his routine isn't as fresh. But all of the other GOAT candidates have their formula match they would rely on as well. Funk, Lawler, Jumbo, Fujinami, Fujiwara, Tenryu and anyone else you want to mention also has a preferred style of match. I don't see repetition as a negative. If it was a negative, there would only be one Ric Flair match in history worth watching, and there are many more than that.

[JerryvonKramer]

It's also simply not true. Yes, he had formulas, but he's very often accused of not telling coherent stories in his matches.

 

I'll cite jdw's famous "he just goes out and does a bunch of stuff" argument.

 

So if we accept that 90% of Flair's matches are called in the ring, on the hoof. I don't see how he can AT ONCE be accused of "just doing stuff" and not telling stories AND be accused of only having 3 different types of matches.

 

So I reject that argument Matt.

[Loss]

If you want a Ric Flair criticism, it's that a lot of his signature stuff was signature defense, not just signature offense. He's unique in that regard. Pillman had the throat-first drop on the guardrail, and Michaels had his own version of the Flair Flip off the turnbuckle, but in general, signature bumps aren't that common.

 

Perhaps you could argue that Ric Flair -- as the first NWA World Champion to be exposed regularly through cable television -- should have understood his role in a changing industry and removed the signature bumping from his act. He was taught in a business that wasn't like that, but he reached his peak when wrestling and technology changed, and as a result, he became the most "exposed" NWA champ of all time. It was a challenge in a business that prided itself on maintaining the aura of plausibility, and if someone saw Flair do some signature bumping several months ago, his matches started to look less like matches and more like performances. Those small things have a way of eventually making people invest less in what they see, and wrestling goes from being this life-or-death sport that has an emotional hook, to a television show that strives more to be entertaining than convincing.

 

So if you want to criticize Flair, maybe the argument is that he paved the way for an era where wrestlers don't "work" anymore, they "perform". That's a Steve Austin quote that I always thought was poignant. It's not a trend I particularly like, as wrestlers who instinctively react -- to their opponent, to fans, to unexpected obstacles -- is something I personally enjoy watching a lot more.

[Matt D]

It's also simply not true. Yes, he had formulas, but he's very often accused of not telling coherent stories in his matches.

 

I'll cite jdw's famous "he just goes out and does a bunch of stuff" argument.

 

So if we accept that 90% of Flair's matches are called in the ring, on the hoof. I don't see how he can AT ONCE be accused of "just doing stuff" and not telling stories AND be accused of only having 3 different types of matches.

 

So I reject that argument Matt.

I think you're wrong.

 

You can have a pattern and it can be incoherent when analyzed.

 

You can do the same stuff and it can be a poor, disjointed narrative. You're still doing the same stuff. You're still telling the same narrative. It's just not a very good, complete one.

 

It always goes back to Flair. I've made myself clear on this one in the past. I don't think he's more repetitive than anyone else at that level. I just think we've seen more of him than we have of anyone else, so his routine isn't as fresh. But all of the other GOAT candidates have their formula match they would rely on as well. Funk, Lawler, Jumbo, Fujinami, Fujiwara, Tenryu and anyone else you want to mention also has a preferred style of match. I don't see repetition as a negative. If it was a negative, there would only be one Ric Flair match in history worth watching, and there are many more than that.

I'd point to Bockwinkel as someone who is the opposite. Not only did he work tons of wildly different, compelling matches with different guys but he started almost every match with a game plan, and a lot of the time those game plans would be very different depending on who he was wrestling and where they were in a feud. Did he go back to the King of the Mountain segments a lot? Sure, but he made it work and make sense within the match in a far more organic way than a lot of Flair's transitions and control segments. I'm perfectly fine with someone doing the same things. But you're not the greatest of all time unless you do the same things in different ways. That's where I think Flair is lacking compared to Bockwinkel or even Bret, who while he has other flaws that knock him out of contention, was masterful in doing the same things different ways.

[Loss]

I'm not disputing that Bockwinkel does this effectively, but I suspect we could create a skewed sample of Flair doing the same.

 

* Flair vs Luger - Starrcade '88

* Flair vs Windham - Worldwide 1/24/87

* Flair vs Garvin - Starrcade '87

* Flair vs Taylor - Mid South 6/1/85

* Flair vs Koko - Memphis 11/85

* Flair vs Steamboat - Night of Champions '84

* Flair vs Martel - All Japan '85

 

Are all of these matches going to be worked the same way?

[Matt D]

It's not about if they "Are" going to be worked the same way but if they were.

 

And the answer is that I have to watch them again and compare and contrast. And I'm totally game on doing this sometime in the next 3-4 months, Absolutely. On paper, they shouldn't be, so it'll be really telling what a tight look at them next to each other reveals.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think Loss's post there about signature bumping is fantastic and analysis like that is one of the reasons why I post on this board every day.

 

Matt - I think you'll find that Flair works Garvin VERY differently from how he works, say, Steamboat. I'll chuck in a few others:

 

vs. Jumbo in All Japan (83)

vs. Garvin at Superstars on the Superstation (85)

vs. Nikita Koloff at GAB 85

vs. Sam Houston

vs. Jimmy Garvin at GAB 87

 

If you watch those five, plus the ones Loss mentioned, I don't think you can argue it's the same match again and again. Even take the two different Ron Garvin matches from 85 and Starrcade 87 they aren't worked the same.

 

Look at Flair's offence in the Jimmy Garvin match where he almost breaks his leg and compare it with the much much more technical style he works with Jumbo in Japan.

 

The stories in all these matches are different:

 

In the Houston match, he's overconfident and underestimates an underdog, but still ends up kicking his ass anyway. In the Nikita match, he's outpowered needs to changeup his game plan to get the better of his opponent. In the Garvin matches he's come to fucking fight.

 

I don't think you can really come out of it and say "oh they are all the same because he always does a Flair Flop and a Flair Flip".

 

Take 10 Hogan matches from the same period, then you can start to talk about formula.

[NintendoLogic]

I think the biggest knock on Flair from a GOAT standpoint is lack of versatility. It's not that he never stepped outside the box at all, but he never reinvented himself like Funk or Jumbo did. You can cut the 90s All Japan guys a pass on that front since the style they worked is the greatest style ever created. You can't really say the same about touring NWA champ style.

 

Also, I would submit that the Just Doing Stuff critique only really applies to long Flair matches. His shorter matches like Chi-Town Rumble tend to be tighter and more structured.

[WingedEagle]

I think Loss's post there about signature bumping is fantastic and analysis like that is one of the reasons why I post on this board every day.

 

Matt - I think you'll find that Flair works Garvin VERY differently from how he works, say, Steamboat. I'll chuck in a few others:

 

vs. Jumbo in All Japan (83)

vs. Garvin at Superstars on the Superstation (85)

vs. Nikita Koloff at GAB 85

vs. Sam Houston

vs. Jimmy Garvin at GAB 87

 

If you watch those five, plus the ones Loss mentioned, I don't think you can argue it's the same match again and again. Even take the two different Ron Garvin matches from 85 and Starrcade 87 they aren't worked the same.

 

Look at Flair's offence in the Jimmy Garvin match where he almost breaks his leg and compare it with the much much more technical style he works with Jumbo in Japan.

Perhaps if you pull these out and chart them move for move like a pitcher every fifth day you'll find he's in fact mixing up what he's throwing out there. But leave that technical analysis aside you're left feeling the same about what's taking place. You may see a curve or slider every now and then but you're generally seeing the same repertoire.