jdw Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 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. Paul wrote Magical Mystery Tour differently than When I'm Sixty Four. They're both Paul Songs from the Pepper Era. Neither of them would have fit onto With The Beatles. Neither of them fit into what he was working on just a *year* later when writing Hey Jude and Why Don't We Do It In The Road. Ric doesn't work that differently with Sam as he did with Jumbo. Different tracks on the same album. As far as the underlying structure of Ric's matches, we talked about that earlier in the thread: The Flair Formula is that (i) he bitches & stooges through the match for the faces, and (ii) Keeps Things Moving Along to fill the space. That's it. That is the underlying structure of Flair Matches. It changes ever so slightly when he's a face because he isn't bitching and stooging, thought he does sell his ass off to make the heels look good. But he's every bit as much in the Keeps Things Moving Along mode. There isn't any grand A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H structure to Ric's matches because he simply doesn't bother to think things through in those terms. He just moves the match along. Watch the Starcade '83 match with Race. It's not like Harley is someone who loves a ton of structure in his matches since he also tends to like to move things along, though he's more willing to lay around then Ric. There are times in the match where Harley looks like he wants to work on the obvious theme leading into the match. Ric... couldn't be fucking bothered, because Ric Has Stuff To Do. At which point it looks like Harley gives up on worrying about working the neck, and just does Stuff... and goes with the flow of the Stuff that Ric wants to do, since Ric was the face and this whole show was built around Ric by Ric's promoter so... fuck it. Another example: the beloved World Wide Wrestling match between Barry and Ric. I remember loving the shit out of it when watching it air in 1987. I've enjoyed Barry's work even more since then, and he struck me as one of the few big guys who was more than willing to sell his ass off to make heels look good. Totally buzzed getting it on the Flair dvd, first thing I wanted to watch. The thing that struck me with rewatching it at that time was how formless it was. Just a hell of a lot of killing time with Stuff randomly thrown together. Was it all done solidly? Sure. Did any of it add up to more than one point (Barry is better than Ric)? Not really. Was there any nice long stretches of Flair control where he did interesting stuff? Not... really. It's just Stuff... a lot of Stuff... keeping things relatively moving along since they're going 40+... but no real focused structure and themes. A contract would be the 02/11/89 Rick Rude vs. Tito Santana in Boston. I'm not pimping that as a Great Match, since it's not. But it's a fairly well structured and laid out match (before they get to the typical shitty WWF 80s Finish). If one is trying to do a thesis on Wrestling Structure, that's really a better one to look at than the random shit going on in Flair's brain. Flair, and Flair Matches, aren't great because he came up with a Flair Structure. It's because he Did A Lot Of Shit in his matches, Kept Things Moving Along, sold the motherfuck out for the faces, and was dramatic and charismatic. We'd be stretching things to say that Ric topped to tease big babyface comebacks.... because Ric was feeding babyfaces comebacks All Freaking Match Long. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 Can someone pull the exact quote? Jesus Christ... _you're_ the one who made the quote. Go pull it, Matt. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 Perhaps Ric was ahead of his time, and was indeed the first smart mark! My recollection is that Ric doesn't care for smart marks anymore than anyone else from that era. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 There's a fun (and probably mostly inaccurate) historiography story about how excited the Social (Marxist) Historians were when computers developed to the point where they could really process complex economic and demographic information on a large macro scale. Finally, they thought, they were going to have mathematical proof of their theories and suppositions. It would be the absolute "end of history." Then they ran their numbers and the computer basically gave them anything but what they expected. I feel like in some ways Flair's long shoot was sort of like that. I mean obviously some people realized well beforehand but they were few and far between. Can someone pull the exact quote? Jesus Christ... _you're_ the one who made the quote. Go pull it, Matt. John I'm at work and my MP3 player's fried! (probably from trying to listen to the Matt Bourne shoot. I can understand it giving up there.) Okay, okay, I'll try to find it tonight if I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 My friends and I didn't watch wrestling as smart fans when I was in high school. That's probably why we enjoyed the traditional Flair spots so much and wanted to see them. A "Flair formula" or analyzing wrestling in a "smart" way was the furthest thing from our minds. If Flair watched wrestling from a smart fan's perspective when he was a "kid," he likely wouldn't repeat his traditional spots like he does. You're absolutely correct in saying Ric did all of his traditional stuff because it made the faces look good and popped the crowd. Ric knows this because, well, almost every time he did these spots the faces looked good and the crowd popped. But in my opinion, to say that Ric's experience as a kid -- whether he was eight or 18, smart or dumb, understood the business or didn't understand the business -- didn't shape his reasoning for always doing these spots, even just a little bit, is wrong. So why didn't Ric just say in the interview that he does these spots because it pops the crowd? Probably because he was hung over. Or he just forgot. Or because there is a small kernal of truth to "kid" Ric Flair being disappointed in missing a traditional Stevens spot, so that's the part of his brain that kicked in when answering the question. We're picking nits on this issue, but I don't think Flair is completely full of shit when he cites being disappointed as a kid as his reason for doing all of his usual spots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 There is no exact quote. Dave paraphrased Flair. The word "kid" was never used. But whether it was or not, "Fans don't expect to see certain moves or spots in matches unless they're smart marks, therefore, Ric Flair is a liar" is a confusing point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 There is no exact quote. Dave paraphrased Flair. The word "kid" was never used. But whether it was or not, "Fans don't expect to see certain moves or spots in matches unless they're smart marks, therefore, Ric Flair is a liar" is a confusing point. I swear I heard him say it on the shoot. I just don't remember where, and it's long. Granted, I've heard so many things over the last year and a half... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 I feel like in some ways Flair's long shoot was sort of like that. I think I've made the point before that most shoots need to be viewed with massive Bullshit Detectors on. There are times they lie simply to put themselves (or their pals) over. There are other times where they try to explain something and toss out either their distorted memory or a simply "This Might Work" explanation that sounds good at the time. Then when you actually think about the explanation, it doesn't make sense / doesn't pass the laugh test / doesn't fit into the timeline / etc. I've used the example of Konnan explaining why a match wasn't called a DQ after a pile driver was used: "You see... it was a No DQ Match." That actually *made sense* on why the pile driver didn't get a DQ. Where it fell down was: "But Carlos... the finish WAS a DQ." The finish of the match was a low blow that the ref called a DQ on. Wrestlers, like almost all of us, will toss out something that makes sense to them... even if in the end, it doesn't make sense. A lot of us get called on out bullshit. Great bullshitters... they often slide by for years... decades... a life time. I think the shoots are usually a bunch of con men spinning their bullshit. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 I think most of us understand that but still tend to find what Flair said in this one instance believable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 I still don't understand what the point of all of this back and forth is. "Ric Flair did it to pop the fans and he liked that" and "Ric Flair did it for the fans" are the exact same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted December 6, 2011 Report Share Posted December 6, 2011 Half of us are trying to understand Rosebud? The other half doesn't think it exists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 I remember what he said. He basically thought fans were disappointed if he did not do a trademark spot live. Almost like its false advertising not to get your shit in. Which I agree with somewhat. He also mentioned something about looking forward to seeing a guy (can't remember who) and he did not do a big thing he was known for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLIK Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 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. Might have this wrong but i'm 99% sure it was Scott Hall who brought that up or atleast that's who I remember 1st hearing it from. I remember what he said. He basically thought fans were disappointed if he did not do a trademark spot live. Almost like its false advertising not to get your shit in. Which I agree with somewhat. He also mentioned something about looking forward to seeing a guy (can't remember who) and he did not do a big thing he was known for. Yeah I remember this too. He was specifically talking about the flip into the corner that he was disapointed he didn't get to see Buddy Rogers pull out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 Actually, it was Ray Stevens, not Buddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 I know I was supposed to look for the exact quote. Sorry things have been a little crazy in real life. I'm glad people remember it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 Lately the Flair Formula has been : "Lose more money, get married, get divorced, lose more money, humiliate yourself on TV, humiliate yourself on Internet, lose more dignity." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 You need to add in there something about: * have con defended by Flair Fanboys * find new "friends" to con out of money John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 The more Flair I see, the more convinced I become that the Flair Formula is a misnomer. The term "fomula" implies a certain degree of order and structure. Mid-2000s Shawn Michaels, for example, clearly had a formula. Flair just had a big grab bag of signature spots that he would employ when the mood struck him. Like, there was no real rhyme or reason as to whether he would beg off at the 3 minute mark or the 20 minute mark. And since a lot of his matches had finishes (rollup, time limit draw, schmoz) that didn't really have to be built up to, the stuff in between the signature spots tended to be little more than filler. When people talk about Flair matches all being the same, I think that's what they mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 I am glad this thread was bumped because I just re-read it and of course, jdw is running with the "kid" point. Flair's age was never specified in the story, except that it was before he got into wrestling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 Arguing over Flair's age when he went to see Ray Stevens or whoever it was misses the point. The main takeaway is that when he was a fan, Flair had certain expectations of what he wanted to see when he went to a wrestling match and was disappointed when they didn't happen. So when he was in the ring, he made sure to do those things so that the people who came to see him weren't similarly disappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 The more Flair I see, the more convinced I become that the Flair Formula is a misnomer. The term "fomula" implies a certain degree of order and structure. On just this page: "The Flair Formula is that (i) he bitches & stooges through the match for the faces, and (ii) Keeps Things Moving Along to fill the space." -jdw "Flair, and Flair Matches, aren't great because he came up with a Flair Structure. It's because he Did A Lot Of Shit in his matches, Kept Things Moving Along, sold the motherfuck out for the faces, and was dramatic and charismatic. We'd be stretching things to say that Ric topped to tease big babyface comebacks.... because Ric was feeding babyfaces comebacks All Freaking Match Long." -jdw If people want to get caught up in Ric's utterly bullshit story to explain why he did some the same shit all the time (he had a sad face because Stevens didn't do something he wanted to see), they're missing the larger points how and why Ric worked. Ric didn't get tossed off the top every fucking match because of the deep emotional scar of Stevens not doing something. It's because it fit onto one of these things: * "The Flair Formula is that (i) he bitches & stooges through the match for the faces" Check * "and (ii) Keeps Things Moving Along to fill the space." Check. * "he Did A Lot Of Shit in his matches" Check. * "Kept Things Moving Along" Check. * "sold the motherfuck out for the faces," Check. * "and was dramatic and charismatic." Check. * "We'd be stretching things to say that Ric topped to tease big babyface comebacks.... because Ric was feeding babyfaces comebacks All Freaking Match Long." Check. Okay... I stand corrected... it fit into _all_ of those things. I could go back to earlier pages in the thread were we talked about these things being effective at popping the crowd and keeping them in the matches. We don't need to buy into Ric's bullshit, or really even waste time arguing whether it's bullshit or not. Ric's working style, formula and structure is just about the most nakes and obvious that's out there. People are trying to look big picture and grand scale on someone whose work is actually as simplistic and obvious as the Hogan Match. And about as effective. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 I don't understand why JDW is so vehement about disputing the Stevens/Rogers/whoever story. "Young fan Richard Fliehr was disappointed when his favorite wrestlers didn't do all their signature TV spots on the house shows" and "Veteran wrestler Ric Flair wrestled this style because it's a simple yet effective way of putting together a match with practically any opponent, which the crowd will invariably mark out for" aren't mutually exclusive. It's not hard to believe that one could lead to the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 I blame myself for the bedbug assault while we were trying to move and we found out the wife was pregnant hitting RIGHT when my MP3 player broke. I could never find the exact quote. It's all my fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 In other news, this Hunter Golden dude totally plagiarized the shit out of Loss' first post in this thread: http://sportales.com/wrestling/the-ric-fla...-a-closer-look/ Or could it be that Hunter Golden IS Loss? We're through the looking glass here, people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.