Loss

I think diminishing returns on Rock's comebacks are inevitable. They could probably squeeze another year out of him, but it's not like there's a lot more he can do.

100% agreed with this. I've always preferred his 1985 to his 1989. He doesn't have the memorable rivalries like Funk and Steamboat, but he is a guy you see turning up all over the place and tearing the house down.

The only point that I want to specifically respond to is 1983. What I have typically said about being best in the world is that even if it's not a full consensus pick where All Reasonable People agree, if the case is there, the case is there. I have never said that Flair was the unquestioned best in the world every single one of those years. I have said he is a pretty solid pick every single one of those years. So to answer your question, no, I don't think he should be ignored because you can think of a few guys you liked better. On a different topic, year-by-year best in the world threads would be a lot of fun. We aren't ready for it yet, but something to keep on the backburner.

Here is the simplest way I know how to present what I'm saying. I had a long post written out with responses to each individual point, but it was painful. In the future, I plan on avoiding these types of GOAT standard/who-is-better conversations. It frustrates me because while I do realize these things are largely subjective, I still think we can bring objective factors into the conversation. But I seem to be the only one who thinks about it that way, and despite how much time I seem to spend on it lately, it's not one of my favorite topics. In the future, I will talk less about wrestlers and more about matches. It's what I care more about anyway. I would rather debate which matches are better and GOAT matches anytime, so that will be what I focus on. In the meantime, I just want to clarify a few things: (1) I care about prime. Not before and after. I have been consistent in that. The 1990 feud with Luger caught Flair at the tail end of his glory days. It was the last great feud he had. Flair started off 1990 as good as he ever was. After dropping the title to Sting, he was never quite the same again in the ring. That was in July. I don't argue for him from 1982-1990 because he had a drop-off halfway through 1990, and it's easier to look at complete years where he's one of the elite. I think Ric Flair was the best wrestler in the world for the first half of 1990. For the second half, I'm not convinced that he hits the top ten. (2) I care about the number of good matches. I have been consistent in that. I realize that some wrestlers luck into runs where they're working with someone great who can make them look better than they really are. I wasn't considering that part of this conversation because wrestlers who were carried aren't usually talked about in GOAT terms anyway. Where I've failed is in repeatedly saying things are "irrelevant" or "don't matter" that are relevant and do matter. That's my fault and something I wish I hadn't said. I cop to that. What I should have said is that typically, by the time a wrestler starts getting talked about in Greatest Of All Time terms, they've survived quite a bit of scrutiny. We know that they are great at the details, because they've already been pointed out. That's been established. I think looking at the number of good matches a wrestler had during their peak, and the time span in which they happened, is the best way to compare elite wrestlers to each other. It is not the best way to compare the Ultimate Warrior and Brad Armstrong because neither is considered a GOAT pick. To compare random wrestlers to either, I do think looking at the details of their act should absolutely be part of the conversation. I was arguing for expediency that by the time a wrestler is considered a GOAT candidates, the gap isn't terribly huge between them and other GOAT candidates. So I think looking at the number of good matches is the best way I know of to break the tie. That doesn't mean he with the highest number automatically wins. It does mean that when you look at the whole of the peak run and compare it to the whole of the peak run of the other guy, the guy whose peak looks better is the guy who is better. (3) I care about the number of good matches during a wrestler's prime. This is a combination of points #1 and #2. Ric Flair had matches that would be in my top 100 of the year every year from 1992-1995. But he wasn't consistently putting out stuff that was at the level of the best wrestlers in the world during that time frame, and there are disappointing performances mixed in too. I don't want to say there aren't disappointing Flair matches in the 80s, but I'm not sure I could count them on two hands without having fingers left over. So the post-prime isn't part of his case when I talk about him. I don't even factor it in. It's great that Funk had a second career. During Funk's second career, he wasn't at the level of the AJ 4, El Dandy, Santo, Casas, Liger, Hokuto or Kong. If he was, it would matter a lot to me. Hansen was at that level and it does matter to me. So how can Funk be considered as best of all time -- with that specifically being cited as a reason -- when he wasn't even best of his time? How is that run a case for him when he was just one of a few dozen good wrestlers who had some good matches throughout the decade? Was Funk in the 90s even clearly better than El Samurai? Dean Malenko? Brian Pillman? Owen Hart? Hayabusa? I don't care what someone does after their prime, at least in the context of a GOAT debate. I can enjoy the matches, and it's a nice bonus, but it's not something I would bring up in a GOAT argument unless they were still among the very best wrestlers in the world long after their best days were over. I have never, not even once, cited the Flair/Steamboat feud in '94, Flair/Vader at Starrcade '93 or the Flair/Tenryu matches in '92 as part of why I consider him the best ever, even though I think all of those matches are outstanding. The reason for that is that I think the prime is the best battleground, because when I think of Ric Flair, I don't think of a pathetic old man limping through his 80s routine to mixed results. I think of the actual 80s routine. (4) My point in mentioning Jaguar Yokota wasn't even specifically to single her out. It was just to point out that I think there's too much focus in GOAT debates on our personal preferences. I know that sounds like a "Duh!" statement, because if we didn't focus on that, what would we focus on? But what I mean by that is that "I'd rather watch this wrestler" is not the same as "This wrestler is clearly better." There's not a big push from people on this board for Lou Thesz or The Destroyer, if you want to switch out the names. Liger doesn't even get talked about much anymore. But that's a reflection of us, not a reflection of the wrestlers themselves. It seems like sometimes, we are so focused on our favorites when having GOAT debates that we aren't fair to those who deserve to be in the conversation despite not being a flavor du jour. I am as guilty of that as anyone. (5) I think you'll find a lot of 90s trios matches from AAA where Rey is heavily featured to be disappointing, if you're going to look at his entire career. If you're going to chart his entire career, which it sounds like you're interested in doing, I hope you look closely at his AAA matches instead of just assuming he was great in Mexico. It's assumed that he's a guy who has been great for 20 years, but I don't think he was consistently great until he came to WWE. He had lots of great matches before that, and lots of disappointing ones too. I would actually say the same for Eddy Guerrero, who has plenty of disappointing matches during his physical prime. We don't have as much footage, but I'm sure the same rings true of Flair in the 70s. Is Rey's 2000s a decent comparison to Flair's 1980s? If so (even if not), that's interesting.

I need a little time to respond. My takeaway from that response is that I've done a pretty poor job of articulating my point. I'll come back to it later.

Bobby Eaton hasn't turned yet, but he is ostensibly the babyface. Solid match, but I was hoping for more. I thought Eaton sitting in the hammerlock went way too long. The match picked up when Arn caught Bobby with the spinebuster, and Bobby took his standard hiptoss on the arena floor, which frightens me every time I see it. Arn steals a win.

Rick Steiner popping up in the middle of everyone is really funny. Brian Pillman has a half dozen war puns ready to roll out. The contrast of the Horsemen, with Flair dressed like a dad in a JC Penney catalog, is funny too. Arn's telling of the summer of 1987 is great!

Gene mentions Hogan, Warrior, Duggan and Savage as potential opponents for Slaughter at Wrestlemania. Jack Tunney confirms that Hogan will face Slaughter. Slaughter is standing by with comments and does a great interview. Hogan is interviewed in the ring. His interview is even better than Slaughter's, even accusing Slaughter of wanting to take a million gallons of oil to gag his Hulkamaniacs. He has everyone in the audience recite the Pledge of Allegiance for good measure before waiving the flag to wrap things up. You know what they say about how fascism will look when it returns. All wildly tasteless, but the build is really good.

Last few minutes. Slaughter gets DQd for swinging a chair. He continues the attack after the match. Hogan makes the save, but is immediately intercepted with the chair. Slaughter then spits on him. Hot segment, but Hogan didn't sell the effects of the attack longer than 10 seconds before he started helping Duggan to his feet.

Hogan visiting the USO. It's cool that he did it, but the cynical side of me can't help but notice that he did it to hype a Wrestlemania main event.

What does a promotion do when they want to run a Royal Rumble, but also don't want to get sued? Easy ... they do the Rumble Royal! Well, that settles that. This is like the Royal Rumble in that someone new comes in every two minutes, but it's different in that pinfalls also count for eliminations. It isn't nearly as organized or tight as the WWF version, as wrestlers miss their cues coming in and the eliminations look sloppy. There are also lots of no names like Chris Germany and Ed Robinson in the early part of this. Steve Austin puts on a show and looks really good while he's in. Funny moment when John Tatum enters and is alone with three babyfaces Jeff Jarrett, Billy Joe Travis and Bill Dundee, and immediately starts gladhanding them all. This has its moments. It's not really a well-worked battle royal, but it is funny that they blatantly copied the WWF concept. Jeff Jarrett takes it home.

January: #1 - El Hijo del Santo vs Brazo de Oro (UWA 01/13/91) ****1/2 #2 - Toshiaki Kawada vs Akira Taue (AJPW 01/15/91) ****1/4 #3 - Manami Toyota vs Akira Hokuto (AJW 01/11/91) **** #4 - Mitsuharu Misawa, Toshiaki Kawada & Tsuyoshi Kikuchi vs Jumbo Tsuruta, Akira Taue & Masa Fuchi (AJPW 01/27/91) **** #5 - La Fiera vs Jerry Estrada (Monterrey 1991) **** #6 - Akira Hokuto vs Bull Nakano (AJW 01/04/91) ***3/4 #7 - Jeff Jarrett vs Eddie Gilbert (USWA Dallas Sportatorium 01/05/91) ***3/4 #8 - The Rockers vs Orient Express (WWF Royal Rumble 01/19/91) ***3/4 #9 - Jerry Lawler vs Terry Funk (USWA Dallas Sportatorium 01/05/91) ***1/2 #10 - Eric Embry vs Gary Young (USWA Dallas Sportatorium 01/18/91) ***1/2 #11 - Ric Flair, Arn Anderson, Barry Windham & Sid Vicious vs Sting, Brian Pillman, Rick & Scott Steiner (WCW Saturday Night/WCW Main Event 01/20/91) ***1/2 #12 - Stan Hansen vs Kenta Kobashi (AJPW 01/02/91) ***1/2 #13 - Brian Pillman vs Rip Rogers (WCW Saturday Night 01/05/91) ***1/4 #14 - Vader vs Tatsumi Fujinami (NJPW 01/07/91) *** #15 - Kyoko Inoue vs Mika Takahashi (AJW 01/05/91) *** #16 - Aja Kong & Bison Kimura vs Bull Nakano & Kyoko Inoue (AJW 01/11/91) *** #17 - Jumbo Tsuruta vs Stan Hansen (AJPW 01/19/91) #18 - Ric Flair vs Scott Steiner (WCW Clash of the Champions XIV 01/30/91) #19 - Bill Dundee vs John Tatum (USWA Dallas Sportatorium 01/25/91) #20 - Eric Embry vs Gary Young (USWA Dallas Sportatorium 01/25/91)

This match was a mess. Flair is the champ again, but he's not at all the guy he was the last time he wore the gold. His performance isn't really bad, but it's very flawed, and it's obvious that he's slipped a lot. Scott Steiner is a guy with explosive offense and Flair kept him grounded and made him sell for most of this match. Flair didn't really know how to sell Scott's suplexes very well, and I'm not sure why there was no Frankensteiner. The thing that Flair could still do better than just about anyone is kick out at the very last second of a pin attempt to get the crowd going crazy, and that absolutely worked. But everything else about this seemed really off. They were working at half speed, the layout was all wrong and Scott didn't really get to showcase the stuff that got him over.

The word "perfect" was used flippantly. Yes, I meant "best", not "perfect". I still don't think it's that drastic of a difference, because no one has offered a better way to do it that is universal. I would like to see one suggested. So far, every other point of view seems to either go on a feeling, or it isolates performances in a series of cherry-picked matches made to favor the pre-determined winner and loser of the argument. Likewise, the word "great" is one I use flippantly oftentimes. The Ultimate Warrior may have more truly great matches than Brad Armstrong. The Ultimate Warrior does not have more good/fun/decent/whatever other adjective matches than Brad Armstrong. Of course Brad Armstrong is better. So let's clarify that to start -- "great matches are the perfect metric" should be "good matches are the best metric". I feel like get in these arguments often enough that I shouldn't have to clarify that, because everyone knows what I generally mean, but for the sake of this post, I will do so, and when this inevitably comes up again, I will make it a point to carefully word this. If it's the default fall back, it's because it's the default response. Let's look at what you said. I bolded the parts that I specifically think refer to talent. I don't consider wrestling mechanics alone "talent". I consider the ingredients in creating the finished product "talent". A wrestler can have all the physical skills in the world and that doesn't necessarily make him more talented than another wrestler. Tony Mamaluke can do flips that Ric Flair can't. Would anyone argue him as more talented? It's possible that there are individual performances where Bockwinkel faced wrestlers of a similar skill level with similar card placement, where certain aspects of his game were better than aspects of Ric Flair's game. It's possible that he was a better mat wrestler, or a better seller, or whatever else. I don't deny that at all. But it seems like a microanalysis that doesn't take into account the big picture, or context (which I'll touch on in a moment since it's something you specifically mentioned), which is why I don't put much stock in it. I haven't seen Bock/Milliman, but from the way you describe it, it is the better match. It's worked smarter and it has a champion understanding his own role and laying out the match in a way that makes more sense. Flair had a mechanically strong match. Mechanics and talent aren't the same thing. It's not a match I would call "good" because it's tone-deaf. I would apply that to other matches as well, many even involving Flair. Understanding the role as the champion and playing it properly is a talent. Many wrestlers who have been good challengers haven't been able to portray themselves properly as aces because they don't understand the difference. Logic is a talent. If it wasn't, every match would be logical. I consider wrestlers who give us logical matches talented. Alone, it's not enough to make a match, but it shows a strong command of the basics. Plenty of wrestlers are horrible and have no command of the basics. This reminds of me two Liger matches from '92: * Jushin Liger vs Norio Honaga, 2/8/92 * Jushin Liger vs Wild Pegasus, 2/10/92 Both matches have generally the same layout. Liger sells a rib injury and his opponent works him over in various ways. Liger tries to apply a surfboard and can't because of the rib pain. They are laid out almost exactly the same way. Both matches are outstanding. Liger/Honaga is far less athletic than Liger/Pegasus. But Norio Honaga seems more threatening and his offense is far more simple and effective. He doesn't have the athletic ability of Benoit and didn't even try to compete with that. He outshines him with attitude. He wrestles a meaner, more aggressive match. For that reason, I think he had a better match with Liger, following the same template. I wouldn't say Liger/Benoit was "better" than Liger/Honaga, even though it was the same match layout with more cool moves added in. The gap is by no means huge between the two matches either, but the reason I thought Liger/Honaga was a better match was because Honaga's performance was more convincing. And on that point, Honaga had a better match against Liger than Benoit once, but I don't think many people would say Honaga was a better wrestler than Benoit. The reason, at least the one I would give, is that Benoit had more good matches. Honaga's good performances were more isolated, and there's no evidence that he was able to sustain it for any length of time. Had Honaga done this a few dozen times with a variety of guys, there would be a conversation there. He didn't. There's not. Absolutely. There is definitely no universally accepted great match. All we can do when waxing poetic on wrestling is wax poetic on our own views. I don't claim to hold the authority to do it on anyone else's behalf, or speak for all wrestling fans. I can only speak for myself. I speak in absolutes when saying these things a lot of the time, because I see it as a tacit understanding that all that any of us can contribute to a discussion is an opinion. I don't often clarify that I'm stating my opinion, because I think it's obvious that we are all doing that. But if two matches are equal all things considered, and the only difference between them is that one respects its context, and the other one doesn't, then absolutely, the one that does respect its context is the better match. Even if one is mechanically better that doesn't, I would still call the one that does better. It is an assumption, yes. It's possibly an incorrect one, yes. It's one that I cringed a little when I said it, but I've also thought it for a little while and decided to just post it. I can understand having a negative reaction to that. But I am basing it on some things that I have observed over the years, specifically as it relates to the collective consensus that I've seen in my bubble of the message board universe. 90s All Japan was the greatest thing ever and people got tired of it. Everyone used to love Joshi. Ric Flair was the greatest thing ever and people got tired of him. Then Jumbo became the greatest ever and people are getting tired of him, to a point where you recently said you never want to see one of his matches again. It's not so much that opinions can't change over time. Mine have, and probably will again. A few years from now, I may not consider Flair the GOAT anymore. But opinions aren't better just because they are newer. I have always disagreed with that. People may be tired of Joshi, but it's disappointing that we don't see more posts like, "I haven't been in the mood to watch Joshi in a long time, but to be fair, we should really give Jaguar Yokota some respect." Of course we can burn out on wrestlers or styles and seek others out. But the word "better" has a very specific meaning to me, and when people start tossing that around because there's something they'd rather watch these days, I am a little skeptical of it, because it usually doesn't sustain itself very long. At times it does. We'll see how people are talking about Buddy Rose in 5-10 years. I have tried not to respond to much of what you or others have said about him, because I haven't watched enough footage to properly judge. But I also think that you understand where I'm coming from. Using Buddy Rose as an example, you recently mentioned that on his best day, you think he is the most talented wrestler you've ever seen. Yet you rank Terry Funk above him on a GOAT list, and I'm assuming that's because Terry Funk has more output. And that's a perfectly reasonable point of view. And I don't understand how it's different than my viewpoint of Flair. I'm open to the idea that over time, Kawada or Hansen may end up above Flair for me. It hasn't happened yet, but it could. And yes, it's not "all that matters". But in my opinion (see, I'm trying), there isn't anything else that matters more. At the end of the day, did they get the job done? But yes, one reason I would put Flair above Lawler, ignoring output, is that I don't like Lawler's in-ring heel work at all. One reason I would put Flair above Funk is that the spaghetti-legged selling turns me off. So yes, there are other factors. I'd rather watch Bret take the sternum-first bump into the ringpost, or watch Pillman go throat first into the guardrail, than watch Flair take a slam off the top rope. But I wouldn't put Pillman or Bret above Flair on an all-time list for two reasons: (1) Pillman and Bret just don't have the body of work that Flair has (2) It's not the individual things a wrestler does that I care about, it's the combined overall effect of what they do and what they get out of what they're doing. Hansen specifically is one I'm interested in looking at more. He's one of the guys I can't wait to watch on the AWA set. My gripe with Hansen has always been that it seemed like his matches in the U.S. just weren't as good. Meanwhile, I've seen Flair go an hour with Jumbo in a match I'm comfortable calling a classic. The first title defense against Jumbo in '81 was excellent too. If Hansen has U.S. matches as good as those, then it's going to become a real toss-up. I don't see a real difference in the level at which Flair works in Japan than I do in the U.S. We should do the Flair/Rey comparison sometime. I think Flair will come out ahead pretty easily. I just ask that you wait and follow my lead on this instead of starting the conversation now, because I want to have time to do it right. As much as Flair has been talked about through the years, his case would take years to walk through because the volume is so high. I've always seen his case as self-evident. Apparently, it's not. Because they happened when he was old and washed up. Because to argue that full-time, 50-something Ric Flair was bad in the late 90s and early 00s is to argue against a point that literally no one I can recall has ever made in his favor, yet it always gets brought up as proof of something, and I'm not sure what that is supposed to be. If you want to counter "Ric Flair was the best wrestler in the world in the 1980s" with "Yeah, but he eventually got old and slipped", I literally have no idea how to counter that, so you win. I'd rather talk about Ric Flair in the 1980s. Who gives a shit about his career when he got old? No one argues it as great, so there's nothing to debate. Old Marlon Brando should not affect anyone's opinion of peak Marlon Brando. Feel free to do a ratio of Flair's prime years. That doesn't just apply to Flair either. You'll notice when I talk about wrestlers, I don't really go after their post-prime all that much, at least in the context of GOAT debates. The reason is that I really don't think it matters even slightly. The whole of the career, fine. Have it out. Point out Flair getting embarrassing. Everything comes to an end. But there is nothing Ric Flair could do after the 1980s were over that would undo what he did during that decade. If we've really decided that it's a weakness that Ric Flair was not 35 forever, I don't know what to do with that. We hear a lot of talk about Terry Funk's second career, but that's a bonus, not part of his case. Right? I don't watch baseball, so I don't really get the analogy. But yes, you shift the paradigm, and you get different results. That's true for anything. But if we're in agreement that determining the GOAT is not a math problem, then why promote ratios and downplay simple number of good matches. No. No. There is not. I will concede that much. But if this isn't the best way, I would like to see something presented that is better, with at least an attempt to find standards that can be applied universally.

The wrestlers sitting at the table are a weird combo: Flair, Windham, Kevin Sullivan, Michael Wallstreet and Alexandra York. Very short spot.

This is so stupidly over the top that I love it. Paul E. gets distracted by Missy's boobs and loses in seconds! He stands there like an idiot with his mouth open for a couple of minutes after. I actually wish they had made this even more ridiculous though.

Meet Stan Hansen, the godfather of puro elitism! He talks about how all anyone wants in the U.S. is pretty boys and face paint, but in Japan, fans want to see real men fight. They show a clip of the Vader match from the Tokyo Dome and use that to hype the match at Wrestle War. Tony Schiavone does a lot to get over how big of a deal this is, and I love that they showed the clip. Awesome.

Sting gets the WOTY award. That's some wild face paint. Then we segue to Dusty Rhodes announcing to the crowd that he is back in an emotional promo that I really enjoyed.

It's clearly NOT a perfect metric. Might it be the best metric? Yes. But I think it goes without saying that it's not a perfect metric for reasons we have covered several times in the past. We have argued the point before, but I have never conceded that. We are debating two different things -- talent and career run of output. Debating talent on its own, I would put many wrestlers above Flair, maybe even Bock after watching more footage from him. This is something I have said many times in this and other threads. I care more about career run of output. What other metrics are there that aren't theoretical or overly subjective? Should we debate who had a better foot stomp? I genuinely don't understand. If great matches aren't the best metric, then please explain what is. I genuinely believe the only reason people are arguing that great matches are a flawed metric is because it means Ric Flair is the hands down winner, and that's a boring, status quo answer. Is that incorrect? If not, I will apologize now for making that assumption.

A match can be good without being a five-star classic. I would never argue otherwise.

It's so awesome that the highlights of this episode are posted. Nash was hilarious in this. Everyone should watch this.

I'm happy that people like New Japan. I may enjoy this time period when I get around to watching it in 2034 or so.

Memphis had some classics in '86, but I seem to remember them having one of their worst week-to-week years through late spring, summer and early fall because they were low on talent. There seemed to be a long drought.