The Flair Formula

[Matt D]

I forget who said it, but SOMEONE had a theory that Flair would keep guys like Sting almost dependent upon him through the way he called the matches with them.

[Loss]

I forget who said it, but SOMEONE had a theory that Flair would keep guys like Sting almost dependent upon him through the way he called the matches with them.

I agree with that. I remember the story of Sting asking Flair not long into their run why they did the same match every night, and Flair told him people want to see the familiar spots and feel disappointed when they don't get them.

[El-P]

I forget who said it, but SOMEONE had a theory that Flair would keep guys like Sting almost dependent upon him through the way he called the matches with them.

I agree with that. I remember the story of Sting asking Flair not long into their run why they did the same match every night, and Flair told him people want to see the familiar spots and feel disappointed when they don't get them.

 

That doesn't surprise me. But still, Luger's matches with Flair in 1990 were terrific. So...

[Matt D]

I forget who said it, but SOMEONE had a theory that Flair would keep guys like Sting almost dependent upon him through the way he called the matches with them.

I agree with that. I remember the story of Sting asking Flair not long into their run why they did the same match every night, and Flair told him people want to see the familiar spots and feel disappointed when they don't get them.

 

Well Flair tells a story where he saw someone Buddy Rogers? Ray Stevens? Someone, as a kid and they didn't do some of their spots and he was hugely disappointed.

 

And that basically shaped his wrestling "psychology" for the rest of his life.

[El-P]

That's pretty much what he said in his shoot interview. He realized that some of his spots didn't make any sense in the match, but the audience loved them, so he felt he had to work that way to please the fans. In a way, it's tough to argue against that.

[jdw]

What's strange about his claim is that you would think he means some of the nonsensical stuff. I mean, what kids after a Ric Flair Match would tell their old man:

 

"I was so disappointed, Father, that Flair didn't get tossed off the top rope."

 

Or...

 

"Oh Father... why didn't Flair get shoved down by the referee tonight? I don't think I'll be able to sleep tonight."

 

Or...

 

"Papa, why didn't Sting throw Flair into the corner so that he could to his flip over the turnbuckle?"

 

Or...

 

"Daddy, why didn't Flair fall on his face tonight?"

 

Or...

 

"Sir... why did Flair not beg off in the corner tonight? When Ric is a bad guy, his matches always make more sense when he is begging in the corner to the Good Guy."

 

I mean... does what Flair said make a bit of fucking sense when you slow down to think about it? What exact things that Flair does in the ring that, if they were absent, make a *kid* disappointed?

 

What Flair over time got rid off were things that a Kid who was a Flair Fan (i.e. rooting for him to win) would miss:

 

* a few more suplexes to damage the opponent

* working over the leg more to set up the figure four

* the pile driver

 

Honestly, do you really think kids who were Kid Flair Fans would be all torn that they didn't get to see Ric thrown off the top?

 

Frankly, what Buddy Rogers fans would have given a shit if he didn't beg off?

 

Ric's just talking out of his ass trying to explain why he did the same shit over and over and over again. One wishes that he would have manned up long ago and responded:

 

Question: "People say you do the same things in all your matches. How do you respond?"

 

Flair: "Every wrestler has things they use all the time, or most of the time depending on the match or opponent. Any wrestlers who tells you otherwise is full of shit. I use what works for me and my opponent to get the fans into the matches."

That's straight forward and truthful.

 

John

[Loss]

Well, Flair's signature spots are not his offense as much as they are his bumps. Yes, he removed things over time, but when I think of Flair, I think of his bumps far more than his offense. I might have been disappointed if I saw him live and he didn't flip over the top turnbuckle or do the Flair flop.

 

I do agree that Flair should just say something straightforward, though.

 

What I thought was more interesting was that Arn and Tully really didn't like the way he worked with Sting and Luger and had a conversation with him about it. He said he had to work the matches the way he did because he had to teach them and try to draw money with them at the same time. All of that can be interpreted in a few ways, as I'm not sure what specifically Arn and Tully didn't like, or what Flair would have to work differently with someone in that predicament.

[JerryvonKramer]

I forget who said it, but SOMEONE had a theory that Flair would keep guys like Sting almost dependent upon him through the way he called the matches with them.

I agree with that. I remember the story of Sting asking Flair not long into their run why they did the same match every night, and Flair told him people want to see the familiar spots and feel disappointed when they don't get them.

 

Is that a bad thing though? Would you like to see a match where Sting doesn't do any of his frog splashes or where Flair doesn't attempt the figure four or doesn't flip or flop?

 

What would that match look like?

 

They talked about this on the Wrestling Culture podcast recently, but I never understood the knock on Flair as being a formula guy.

 

How should the match look? Heel shine, babyface dominates, heel comeback? I mean I don't get what people want. Flair changed his shit up far more than, say, Hogan or Bret did.

 

I've been thinking about making a thread on this. But I reckon I've found at LEAST 5 different Flair formulas that he used in the 1980s. Maybe one was appropriate for Sting, one for a jobber or lesser opponent, one for a 2/3 falls, one for Japanese opponents, one for 60-minute broadways. That's 5 different match structures.

 

Who else could we do that with? Especially from the 1980s. Funk, sure, Lawler, sure. Who else? Seriously, this is one of those things that winds me up. Do people who complain about supposed lack of variety want Flair to do hurricaneranas?

 

Does anyone think he worked Sting the same as he worked Steamboat the same as he worked Jumbo the same as he worked Martel the same as he worked Race, Bockwinkel, or Sam Housten? Such a silly argument.

 

Not saying anyone here is saying that, but it always gets me.

[Loss]

Moved the Flair talk in the power wrestler thread here, moved the infamous Ginger Lynn stuff out of here to its own self-contained and closed thread, and re-opened this one.

[JerryvonKramer]

Loss, your post from May 4th 2009 is incredible

[jdw]

Well, Flair's signature spots are not his offense as much as they are his bumps. Yes, he removed things over time, but when I think of Flair, I think of his bumps far more than his offense. I might have been disappointed if I saw him live and he didn't flip over the top turnbuckle or do the Flair flop.

#1 - You and I and Bix and Dylan and other Smart Fans might enjoy Ric bitching and stooging and bumping and be disappointed if Flair Tossed Off The Top wasn't in a match.

 

#2 - A *kid* who is a Flair Fan doesn't think on that level.

 

For Flair's claim about Buddy to be true and valid, #2 would need to be true, not #1.

 

A kid wouldn't miss Flair getting tossed off the top. Even a non-Flair Fan couldn't miss it, as long as Sting was kicking Flair's ass in some other way.

 

The reality?

 

Getting tossed off the top got a pop. It was an easy spot for Ric (and other guys like Harley who did it). So he kept doing it. Someone "missing it" had nothing to do with it.

 

I'm really stupefied anyone ever bought it when Ric said it. To me honest, I never bothered pointing out that Ric wasn't making sense because I thought it was pretty obvious. It's not like we're talking about fans missing Stan's Lariat or his Longhorn Yell.

 

John

[Loss]

Why are you using kids as an example? Flair wasn't marketed to kids, and neither was the company where he made his name. It was the "adult" alternative to the WWF.

[jdw]

Why are you using kids as an example? Flair wasn't marketed to kids, and neither was the company where he made his name. It was the "adult" alternative to the WWF.

Because Ric said he was a Kid when he was disappointed in Buddy or Stevens:

 

Well Flair tells a story where he saw someone Buddy Rogers? Ray Stevens? Someone, as a kid and they didn't do some of their spots and he was hugely disappointed.

 

And that basically shaped his wrestling "psychology" for the rest of his life.

How Ric was marketed isn't really relevant. He claims he didn't want to disappoint the fans because he didn't do something they were expecting, which we can include getting tossed off the top. I'm not buying it. Ric liked that it got a pop and kept doing it.

 

Earlier in the thread there was a funny comment (by Keith, I think) about how Ric comes across as more than a bit dump in the shoot. I chalk this up as another one: Ric coming up with his "reason" for why he did the same shit all the time, thinking it made him sound heroic ("I did it for the fans!") without being a mercenary ("I do what works."), and really didn't think two seconds about it. A few folks over time had agreed with him who were predisposed to agree with him (say Madden and/or Dave), and he said it a few more times... and probably now even believes it himself.

 

John

[jdw]

BTW... I like the Beatles post, and thought Daniel's response was pretty solid. Not pimping it, but usually when reading stuff I tossed up from several years back, there's stuff I cringe over. Thought that did a pretty good job getting across why one could be bored the hell out of Flair matches while acknowledging they're great.

 

John

[Loss]

I don't think when he told the story he was a kid at the time, but the only reason I bring that up is because I could see a college age person watching wrestling and looking for the same stuff that we look for. If Flair was a late teens/early 20s guy (mid 60s-ish), saw Stevens and saw something different, was disappointed because he wanted the familiar stuff and decided that was how he wanted to work, I don't think it's such an outlandish story. Like you said, true or not, he probably convinced himself at some point that it was true. It doesn't really matter if it's true or not, even. It's going to be his go-to. Him not saying "I like the pop" isn't underhanded or anything.

 

It was me earlier in the thread who said he came off a bit dense in the shoot. When I hear Flair talk, I don't hear a guy who seems like he gets it, and it surprises me that his promos are so good when he doesn't really explain wrestling well when he's not performing.

[Loss]

And by the way, that is pretty much what he says in his shoot. He admits that lots of things he did in his matches didn't make sense, but they got a reaction, so he didn't care.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'd like to develop my idea that there are at least 4 or 5 different "Flair formulas" that he employs depending on the opponent.

 

Before any of that though - I think it's worth pointing out that "the Flair formula" is a variation of THE wrestling match babyface vs. heel formula of:

 

1. Babyface shine

2. Heel does something to cheat to gain advantage

3. Heel controls

4. Heel "heat segment" reaches a peak (figure four) to transition into ...

5. Babyface "hope spot" (figure four reversal)

6. Heel regains control (thumb to the eye after reversal)

7. Babyface starts comeback (no selling of chops / chops vs. punches etc.)

8. Finish

 

That's not just the Flair formula, it's the Hogan formula, it's the Bret formula, it's the Lawler formula. EVERYONE works to that formula.

 

So we're looking for subtle variations.

 

From what I've seen - your typical Crockett main event match is DIFFERENT from your typical Flair in All Japan 2/3 falls match, which is DIFFERENT from your 10-minute TV match vs. Sam Houston or some other jobber.

 

Let's just stick with those three for now.

 

The Crockett main event match is as described in Loss's May 09 post on page 1. This also doubles as his NWA champ match vs. local hero in any given territory. So he'd work Sting the same as he'd work the local hero.

 

2/3 falls match in All Japan.

 

Ok, basing this mainly on the Jumbo match, but most of his All Japan stuff I've seen so far is similar to this, the Martel match, for example:

 

1. Long 10-15 minute "parity" segment consisting mainly of matwork. Face on top first, then Flair, but this is not "set".

 

2. Transition to some strikes, a high spot (suplex or piledriver)

 

3. Moving into finishing sequence. Usually the face will get this. 1-0

 

4. Flair steps up a gear and becomes more aggressive. He's frustrated at being outwrestled so he starts with the high-end offence.

 

5. After maybe a brief bit of matwork, transition to Flair working the leg. Typically a kneebreaker around here, big kneedrops, etc. Working towards figure-four.

 

6. Figurefour spot - either leading to submission 1-1 or reversal spot leading to pin or submission 1-1.

 

7. No messing about now, into the third fall and "the big battle". Pace steps up, Flair still aggressive, but babyface fighting back alot.

 

8. Trading of suplexes and strikes.

 

9. Transition to finish.

 

 

To AN EXTENT, that formula seems to be how ALL 2/3 matches in 80s All Japan were worked, but Flair sticks to that. He doesn't necessarily make it become a "Flair match". He works it like an 80s All Japan match.

 

 

My other example is vs. Sam Housten or another JTTS / jobber:

 

1. Flair toys with jobber in a smug and superior way and focuses on working the crowd.

 

2. Flair does something to underestimate the jobber who ends up getting in offence.

 

3. This pisses Flair off who regains control.

 

4. Flair aggressive now and starts systematically DESTROYING jobber.

 

5. Flair in position to pin jobber, but opts instead to dish out more punishment, he's got a point to prove.

 

6. He gets so carried away, another babyface has to run in to make the save.

 

I could keep going, but the point is that THAT match has significant structural differences from the All Japan match, which is different again from the mainevent Crockett / travelling champ match.

 

Yes, they are all variations on the same formula, but then SO IS EVERY MATCH EVER.

 

Thoughts?

[Matt D]

I don't know. I buy Flair's logic. It frustrates the hell out of me that his matches consistently toss aside storytelling so he can get his stuff in. I buy that it's due to some sort of childhood wrestling trauma making him bullheaded.

[El-P]

I dunno, I kinda buy it too. It's not like he's defending his work in the interview, he flat out said it didn't make any sense at times but since the fans enjoyed it, what the hell.

[jdw]

I buy the larger theme of Flair's point:

 

* He does stuff to pop the fans even if it doesn't make sense.

 

I don't buy the justification of it, which others (like Dave) have grabbed onto like Linus' blanky to defend Ric's shit not making sense and him doing the same shit over and over and over again:

 

* sad little kid who did see Stevens/Rogers to some signature thingy in a match

 

Seriously... think two second about it. So Stevens doesn't do the Bombs Away in a match and poor little Ricky is disappointed. So he makes sure he always does his equiv so that fans don't get disappointed in him:

 

Ric Gets Toss Off The Top

 

"Does this make logic?"

-Konnan

 

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

On Jerry laying out Ric's different Formula's... you're putting too much thought into it. *Ric* doesn't put that much thought into his work. He doesn't structure his matches. He's talked about winging it out there.

 

Flair's Formula is just doing shit, keep things moving along, make the face look good, pop the fans.

 

John

[JerryvonKramer]

jdw - even if he hasn't planned it and was, as you say, winging it, that doesn't mean those unlying structures aren't there. Whenever anyone performs a structural analysis of a piece of literature do you think the author was ever thinking about those things? Does the author even matter? Does what Flair was actually thinking matter?

 

Fact is, he worked Jumbo differently from the way he worked Sam Houston.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

Did Flair ever say he was a little kid when (insert name of wrestler) let him down by not doing a signature move(s)? Now that I am an old fart at the age of 30, I refer to high schoolers and college undergrads as kids. I'm guessing when Flair refers to himself as a kid, he probably means between the age of 16-22.

 

Either way, when I was a "kid" in high school and college, my buddies and I would be upset when Flair didn't do the flop, get tossed off the top rope or drill someone in the nuts. Whenever my wife gets sucked into a wrestling match that I'm watching, it's usually a match involving Flair and she always asks if he did the flop or somersaulted over the turnbuckle yet.

 

I buy the larger theme of Flair's point:

 

* He does stuff to pop the fans even if it doesn't make sense.

 

I don't buy the justification of it, which others (like Dave) have grabbed onto like Linus' blanky to defend Ric's shit not making sense and him doing the same shit over and over and over again:

 

* sad little kid who did see Stevens/Rogers to some signature thingy in a match

 

Seriously... think two second about it. So Stevens doesn't do the Bombs Away in a match and poor little Ricky is disappointed. So he makes sure he always does his equiv so that fans don't get disappointed in him:

 

Ric Gets Toss Off The Top

 

"Does this make logic?"

-Konnan

 

John

[jdw]

Did Flair ever say he was a little kid when (insert name of wrestler) let him down by not doing a signature move(s)? Now that I am an old fart at the age of 30, I refer to high schoolers and college undergrads as kids. I'm guessing when Flair refers to himself as a kid, he probably means between the age of 16-22.

I'll quote it again:

 

Well Flair tells a story where he saw someone Buddy Rogers? Ray Stevens? Someone, as a kid and they didn't do some of their spots and he was hugely disappointed.

 

And that basically shaped his wrestling "psychology" for the rest of his life.

Now I don't think Ric tells the story that he was a 16-22 year old "kid" who watched wrestling like jdw, Loss, Bix, the Two Phils, Jerry and Cross Face Chicken Wing in the sense of Smart Fan Analyzing Wrestling:

 

"Stevens did a really good job of selling for Robinson tonight, but I really missed the face first flop because that always seals the deal on Stevens really bitching out for the faces."

-Kid Ric Flair

 

Does that at all sound like how Young Ric Flair would watch wrestling matches?

 

Or is that 180 degrees opposite of how Ric would watch it, given his (and nearly every other old timer's) dislike for hardcore fans over thinking ever aspect of wrestling?

 

I go back to trying to draw the link between:

 

#1 - what in Stevens/Buddy's act that Stevens/Buddy could have dropped out that disappointed Ric

#2 - what in Flair's act he kept doing because dropping it would disappoint what *he* views as fans

 

Did Ric back as a kid really think Stevens not doing the face first flop was disappointing? Or would it have been something like the Bombs Away?

 

So what are Ric's equiv of the Bombs Away?

 

* Figure Four

* Chop, Chop and More Chops

* Eternal Suplex

* Face First Flop

* Ric Tossed Off The Top

* Ric Flips Into The Corner

 

I'm guessing that Ric really, really, really doesn't think that the last three are his equiv of the Bombs Away and that fans would be disappointed if they weren't in matches. They simply are things that he knows make the faces look good and got pops from the fans.

 

More likely the first three, more so the first two.

 

Again... we need to stop thinking that Ric as a "kid" viewed wrestling like we do. We're hardcore fans who overthink this shit. Ric doesn't... not even when he got into the business and it was his job to think about the shit.

 

John

[Kostka]

Perhaps Ric was ahead of his time, and was indeed the first smart mark!

[Matt D]

Did Flair ever say he was a little kid when (insert name of wrestler) let him down by not doing a signature move(s)? Now that I am an old fart at the age of 30, I refer to high schoolers and college undergrads as kids. I'm guessing when Flair refers to himself as a kid, he probably means between the age of 16-22.

I'll quote it again:

 

Well Flair tells a story where he saw someone Buddy Rogers? Ray Stevens? Someone, as a kid and they didn't do some of their spots and he was hugely disappointed.

 

And that basically shaped his wrestling "psychology" for the rest of his life.

Now I don't think Ric tells the story that he was a 16-22 year old "kid" who watched wrestling like jdw, Loss, Bix, the Two Phils, Jerry and Cross Face Chicken Wing in the sense of Smart Fan Analyzing Wrestling:

 

"Stevens did a really good job of selling for Robinson tonight, but I really missed the face first flop because that always seals the deal on Stevens really bitching out for the faces."

-Kid Ric Flair

 

Does that at all sound like how Young Ric Flair would watch wrestling matches?

 

Or is that 180 degrees opposite of how Ric would watch it, given his (and nearly every other old timer's) dislike for hardcore fans over thinking ever aspect of wrestling?

 

I go back to trying to draw the link between:

 

#1 - what in Stevens/Buddy's act that Stevens/Buddy could have dropped out that disappointed Ric

#2 - what in Flair's act he kept doing because dropping it would disappoint what *he* views as fans

 

Did Ric back as a kid really think Stevens not doing the face first flop was disappointing? Or would it have been something like the Bombs Away?

 

So what are Ric's equiv of the Bombs Away?

 

* Figure Four

* Chop, Chop and More Chops

* Eternal Suplex

* Face First Flop

* Ric Tossed Off The Top

* Ric Flips Into The Corner

 

I'm guessing that Ric really, really, really doesn't think that the last three are his equiv of the Bombs Away and that fans would be disappointed if they weren't in matches. They simply are things that he knows make the faces look good and got pops from the fans.

 

More likely the first three, more so the first two.

 

Again... we need to stop thinking that Ric as a "kid" viewed wrestling like we do. We're hardcore fans who overthink this shit. Ric doesn't... not even when he got into the business and it was his job to think about the shit.

 

John

 

Can someone pull the exact quote?