Loss

Not sure it could have helped him pack 6,000-8,000 into a Philly arena every week, with occasional 10K+ crowds for big shows.

Heyman was a creative guy. And what he did is in many ways impressive. But he never -- not even one time -- filled a regular-sized arena. Jerry Jarrett had far more success in a weaker market, on a smaller budget, and with less television clearance. Did the largest house in ECW history even hit 2,000 people? Sure, he was creative, but he wasn't really successful. And I think that has to factor into this at least *some*, even if you're not using it to form your entire opinion.

I actually think that's more of an argument for Paul Heyman as a promoter, not a guy who crafted well done angles, built new stars and created matches that people were invested in and wanted to see.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, the title change from Lenny to Psicosis was worked and never actually happened. They needed to write Lenny and Lodi out immediately due to pressure from GLAAD, so this is how they made it happen.

What was his most successful angle? Who was the biggest star he created?

The only booker on that list to never really turn a profit is the one who won. There you go.

My impression is that guys who are loners, not big partyers (or even at all) and smarter than the average wrestling immature fuck-up and who take wrestling for what it is, a job, are not well liked in general. Pro-wrestling is a sleazy business and the "old-school" mentality of "paying your dues" and stuff is pretty much a bunch of shit. Goldberg who from all acount is a really smart and nice guy also got shit for not being a wrestling fan and treating wrestling as a job. I always saw Goldberg as a guy who was too normal to be in wrestling. He also always seemed like a pretty decent human being.

Yeah, Luger's life fell apart around the time he started dating Elizabeth, and he just continued to slowly deteriorate from there. I think in his shoot, we were seeing someone either still on drugs or who was so damaged from doing them that he just wasn't the same anymore. I think we also saw a guy in denial that his career was over, thinking if he said all the right things, WWE might bring him in for that last run. Shortly before this, he was selling himself to indy promoters as a guy who was getting offers from WWE to return all the time, which we know wasn't true. But Luger's rep was of a guy who was the polar opposite of stupid. This was a guy who got heat in the 80s for openly questioning why Jim Crockett didn't insure his wrestlers. This is a guy who worked the smartest clause about working outside the U.S. into his WCW contract that I have ever heard of a wrestler doing, which pays off with a hilarious story about the '91 Starrcade in Tokyo show and why Luger wasn't on it. He was in some ways the precursor to Kevin Nash somehow getting great deal after great deal because he was such a shrewd self promoter (although he worked harder than Nash at comparative points in their careers). He was a businessman.

I know he wasn't talking about the board. Dylan is a friend. No worries. I just wanted to respond to the point. Looks like it's a moot point.

Me?

I'm going to assume you are directing this post toward me, and all that I will say in response is that no, it's not "innately heretical" to question Ric Flair's greatness. I've criticized Flair myself. I don't think anyone here thinks any opinions on wrestling are sacred. My only issue is whether or not the complaints raised against Flair -- or anyone else for that matter, as this thread stopped being about Flair a long time ago for me -- are fairly applied across the board. Calling Ric Flair the GOAT is high praise, and any opinions expressed in support of that deserve scrutiny. But to dismiss or disagree with that scrutiny is not to say that no one is allowed to raise counterpoints, or that any opinions that don't support Ric Flair being the best ever are stupid and a waste of time. If I honestly felt that way, I would have banned anyone who posts here that doesn't see Ric Flair as the GOAT, and I hope everyone knows I would never do that. The reason this thread irked me so much initially was that it was a comparison of a guy who many argue as GOAT to a guy that I've never seriously heard anyone argue as the GOAT except for that wrestler himself, and maybe some fans that pretty much only care about the WWF and/or American wrestling. Even in the defenses of Bret in this thread, not one person has called Bret Hart the all time best wrestler unless I've missed it. Some have called him their favorite, which felt like a very different thing, and I was frustrated that it seemed like people didn't know the difference. Round 2 was frustration over the phrase "playing the bitch", which seems to have originated as a phrase in Flair discussions at this board, and felt like a newly invented phrase that was too convenient and wasn't all that clearly defined. I sort of get what the definition of that is now (making others look great while making yourself look worse than you should), but it still seems like something that is just exaggerated, as the examples provided weren't really enough to convince me that Flair looked like an idiot. There is a clear difference between Flair and someone like Fuerza Guerrera, who really mastered the role of the bumbling fool. Even then, I don't think saying Fuerza "played the bitch" is quite accurate or fair. Recently, I said I could see Stan Hansen unseating him in my mind after continuing to watch more footage. I also think there are others who definitely belong in the conversation. I am sure there are some who would have wrestlers in that realm that I wouldn't, and wrestlers I would have in that realm that others wouldn't. Ric Flair is a flawed wrestler, just like every wrestler in history. The debate is not over anyone's right to acknowledge and comment on those flaws. It's a debate over the relevance and accuracy of those points, and if those points are enough to take him off the mountain. I don't think they are, but I don't have a monopoly on Right Opinions, so others can and do see it differently. I think it's also a debate on whether or not the positives are strong enough to overcome any negatives mentioned. So we debate it. That's what we do.

Not sure exactly how soon, but know that we are working hard on it.

If anyone wants to respond to the rest, feel free. If no one does, that's fine. I'll concede that these points aren't being made to attack Flair. I don't think they are. I don't feel like there's an agenda at play here to discredit him, and I've dropped the notion that people are just microtargeting him because they're sick of his reputation and want to come up with something fresh just for the sake of coming up with new things to talk about. I thought that for a long time. I don't think that now. I think more of jdw, Nintendo Logic and Matt D (who has sat out this round, but who I feel is owed that clarification for Round 1) than that. But here's my question. What does "playing the bitch" mean? That, more than anything, is what I'm trying to understand at this point. Opinions on Flair may differ, and I regret even going there again in my last post. If I can walk away with an understanding of the difference between that and selling, bumping and giving offense, that's great.

Good lord... Flair is hardly held to a critical standard. He's the GOAT of GOATS, and has been for close to 30 years. For almost all of that, Flair's GOATdom has been held to *no* critical standards, and simply been taken on faith because it was on the tablets handed by God to Mosezler. Even people like me who've pointed out him doing the same stupid shit that mere Mortal Wrestlers get knocked left and right for, we have to bend over backwards to make sure that people know we still think Ric is a great, great, great worker. Then shake out heads when people think we hate Ric. It's next to impossible to apply critical thinking to Flair like we do everyone else because fans of Flair get so defensive about him being treated like any other wrestler. You're pretty much 180 degrees the opposite of Flair Analysis over the past 30 years. This is disingenuous. You know that I'm referring to discussion of Flair in the last decade, and on boards like this, DVDVR, Smarkschoice and tOA. Flair is absolutely held to a higher critical standard. Among some of the things he's been criticized for through the years: * Having signature spots * Having a general formula and preferred method of working * Declining with age I don't think you hate Flair anymore. But there are other wrestlers who are talked about as great whose strengths and weaknesses I've never really seen broken down like they have been for Flair. How many of those things could be applied to other wrestlers? How many of those things actually are used to criticize other wrestlers? Does anyone really critically break down Steve Austin? Jushin Liger? Vader? Where can I read those discussions?

Hardly unique to Flair. I've even pointed to Savage bitching out by taking cover behind Liz. That's great. I'm glad an example of another heel doing it is mentioned here. Of course it only seems like that if you ignore the examples given in this and the prior threads. What have I ignored? If there's a point being raised that I'm not responding to, let me know what it is, and I will respond to it, because I sure don't see it. The begging off is what I've seen referenced here and I've addressed that a few times. Hard to see examples of Jumbo doing it, but I'm opening minded to someone citing some for me to look up. Well, I mentioned the apron KO that set off the entire Misawa/Jumbo feud. It was a forearm from the apron to the floor. It's a spot that happens all the time in tag matches, especially in All Japan. Jumbo did it to Misawa earlier in the same match, and it was a payback spot. Misawa sent a message by hitting him back much harder. Jumbo sold it for a few minutes and then lost his temper and got in a scuffle with Misawa mid-match. It was a great angle that was executed really well and led to a two-year feud, which ultimately gave way to Misawa being The Man until he left the company. It's definitely something I'd praise. I wouldn't call it playing the bitch. I wouldn't call Flair getting slammed off the top or escaping with his title by the skin of his teeth playing the bitch either. Maybe some of the finishes to Flair's matches made him look weak, like the reverse decisions after ref bumps, or disqualification wins over guys he should have beaten cleanly. But that's more about booking than ring work. Of course Cornette bitched out. So did the MX, if we're defining it the way I think we are. Eaton and Lane ran into each other in heel miscommunication spots all the time and would occasionally work a spot where they shoved each other and briefly teased dissension over it. There's also the Stan Lane/Tracy Smothers karate fight at the Bash that ends with Lane getting embarrassed after arrogantly challenging Smothers to a karate fight. This is where you get hung up: It is neither a compliment nor a rip. It is simply a descriptor. Now think back to the Thesz Fans who got all riled up when people pointed out that he played NWA Heel Champion in most of the old footage the exists of him in the era, including stooging, begging, bumping his ass off, taking shortcuts, fouling behind the ref's back and rough housing. Those were simply descriptors of what Lou did. Well... that pissed them off because they had this mental image of Lou "wrestling straight", being a wrestler's wrestler, and not doing any of that entertainment showy stuff. Well... fuck it. The descriptions were accurate. Watch Lou vs Vern, and that's what Lou was: an NWA Heel Champ, and a pretty damn good one when opposite a great babyface like Verne. I don't have any false notions of Flair "wrestling straight" and not doing any of that "entertainment showy stuff". I don't think that's what this is about. I don't really care. Initially people didn't like me saying that Hogan was a pretty damn effective worker in the 80s. It got in the way of their notion that Hogan was a shitty worker, the Anti-Flair with the Mark of the Beast on his forehead, and we can't possibly say anything might be taken as a positive. But... It was a statement of fact. It's impossible to watch Hogan in the mid-80s and not call him effective. Whether one thinks his work is shitty or great is besides the point. The one statement of fact that anyone being objective would agree on is that he was effective in what his job was. Yes to all of this, but I don't know what that has to do with this. So did Misawa, and so did Kobashi. You're looking far too tunnel vision on it: all forms of selling and bumping doesn't mean bitching, anymore than all forms of working on top mean Hulking Up or Super Shawn Comebacks~! The example cited was that Flair got three moves in during the Garvin match, with Garvin taking the rest of it. The other example cited was him begging off, which I addressed. So the point on the Garvin match was that Ric Flair was playing the bitch because he gave Garvin so much of the match, right? Or am I missing something? If you would call that playing the bitch, would that mean it's a matter of giving opponents offense? Isn't that what I've been asking this whole time? Is it about the amount of offense given? How many times must I say that Ric was a great, great, great worker? Black Sabbath is a different type of band than Yes. I'm sure there are people out there who think that both were great at their peak. But they were clearly different. Not all "heels" are alike. Hell, wrestling would suck if they all were. Yes, I know you think of Flair as a great worker. This is about me trying to understand what "playing the bitch" means, and how it differs from giving offense to opponents and selling for them. Nintendo Logic mentioned that can be done without looking like a coward or buffoon. I agree. So what did Flair do that made him look like a coward or buffoon? The examples mentioned so far seem to be that ... he gave his opponents a lot of offense and sold for them. Vader didn't play stooging bitch heel. I think you know that watching Flair-Sting and Vader-Sting you were seeing two very different styles of heels opposite of Sting. Unless you're just intentionally burying your head in the sand thinking that All Heels Are Alike. Loss: I don't think you can't see that heels are different. :/ John Vader was a bump machine. Vader also had the sunset flip spot where he'd try the splash to counter it and end up landing on his ass. He loved to roll that spot out. It made his opponent look smart and I guess you could say at that moment, it made him look a little silly. I wouldn't call it playing the bitch. It's a heel thing to do. I'm not sticking my head in the sand about anything. I'm trying to genuinely understand the difference between "playing the bitch" and making an opponent look good through bumping, selling and giving offense. Is it about embarrassment? Isn't losing a match an embarrassment? Is it about looking ineffective? What is it?

Dave Scherer's response to Wade's column is infuriating to read. Unbelievable that he can not only lie so much, but be completely aloof about how transparent he is in doing so.

Stop trolling.

So it's showing fear? Did anyone really think Flair was scared to death when he begged off? Or was it pretty obviously a mind game to swing the match back in his favor? I hate even having to defend the begging off, because it's not something I'm a fan of. But are you referring to that, or something else entirely?

Where has the latter happened?

It's a silly motivation, but I've seen people get in fights in public over parking spaces. Those people are insane and not really relatable, but at least it's a somewhat true motivation for something.

Fair enough. I think we've hashed that out before. Of course, one of those advantages can also be the participants.

And as much as I'm sure it seems the opposite is true, the purpose of me being so adamant about this is not to keep defending Flair. I'm a fan, but I have fatigue on going through arguments like these. Still, when Flair is held to a critical standard that no one else is, I'm going to speak up when I think those criticisms aren't being fairly applied to other wrestlers.

I am completely hung up on the word "bitch". The word is important. And as long as you use the word, I'm going to make an issue of it. The biggest reason is that it's a Flair-unique term. And all it seems to mean is to sell and give opponents offense, which is a standard thing that every wrestler does, especially heels. Do you talk about Jumbo playing the bitch? Or Kawada? Or Hansen? Or Liger? Or the MX? At best, it's a backhanded compliment. It's not a term that I think anyone would associate with praise, much less as a neutral statement of fact. Ric Flair liked to sell. He liked to bump. He liked to give his opponents offense. He liked to make his opponents look good. He liked to build to really hot nearfalls where people thought he was about to lose. There is truth in this for any wrestler that anyone around here would praise. In addition to that, he didn't win decisively in a way that made him look like the better man very often. I'm sure we could point to occasions when he did, but it wasn't the norm. "Playing the bitch" is an implication that he's doing something other top heels don't do, and that doing it is wrong, no matter how many times you say that it isn't. I could bring Vader into this argument, who may have taken more bumps (way more if you add in Race's bumps) per match at his peak than Flair did. Did Vader play the bitch too? If not, why not? If so, have you ever used that term to describe his act?

That's like saying it's not fair for a cage match to get MOTY votes because other matches happened that year that didn't have a cage. Every good match has advantages other matches don't. It's usually why they are good.

No one has ever said that Flair should give very few of his opponents any offense. It certainly wasn't part of the prior Flair thread. I think you know that, and I'm kind of surprised that you're claiming that was an argument people made. :/ John Frankensteiner just pointed out that Flair had three offensive moves in the Garvin match, and you agreed with him. Was the point to praise that as a good thing or criticize it as a bad thing? I don't think it was a neutral statement. We have agreed on the only facts stated in this back and forth, which were that: * Ric Flair sold a lot for muscleheads, and gave them lots of offense in his matches * Ric Flair and Ron Garvin beat the hell out of each other in their matches (And yes, Garvin probably did more of that) * Ric Flair sold a lot for Barry Windham and Ricky Steamboat, and gave them lots of offense in his matches, but they also did the same for him If you're trying to get me to concede a point that Flair sold a lot and gave his opponents a lot of offense, I'm not going to disagree with that. What I don't understand is that it's a point of criticism. And I don't understand the difference between doing that and "bitching out", despite the explanation. It seems to be some term that only applies to Ric Flair.