Loss

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?show...l=flair+formula

You're still defining what the "objective best wrestler" means and someone else might think it means something else. So your best is your personal favorite. Good to know.

I think you misunderstood me or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'm asking what makes Flair's matches great. That entire post is a good summary but other than the bolded parts, not really a good argument for why his matches are great. If someone didn't believe the matches weren't very good to begin with there's not much there to convince them otherwise. This is bullshit. I get trolled into an argument at least once a fucking week over Ric Flair, and I haven't made the case for him. I've walked through his matches plenty of times in folders on this board. More than you've ever made the case for any wrestler, I promise.

Here's a direct comparison, and the two matches are online for that matter. Let's look at your throwaway TV match and compare the two. Tom Pritchard is a better wrestler than Tom Zenk, so ideally that would give Bret the advantage. Bret Hart vs Tom Pritchard, WWF Monday Night RAW 02/22/94 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8bu9q_br...m-pritchar_news Ric Flair vs Tom Zenk, NWA Power Hour 02/02/90 In case this is a skewed example, we could also look at this for Bret. Or this. Or . Or this. Or . Or this. Or this. Or . And we could also look at for Flair. Or . Or this. Or this. Or . Or . Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. I don't want to be too biased, because Flair also has this stinker and Bret has perhaps my favorite singles match ever on WWF TV. But it's hard to argue Bret over Flair.

Objectivity is not code for anything. It's just referenced here as recognizing the difference between personal favorites and best. Ric Flair is not my personal favorite wrestler. I'm agnostic on those things, as I mentioned recently.

Considering that you narrowed your favorite matches down to 40 because you felt like liking 50 matches was too many, you not caring for a match is not really a major strike against it. It just means your standards are probably way too high.

To get Goldberg even more over. This is how wrestling has always worked. Heels are built up strong to be fed to babyfaces. And of course they get wins on the way up. Just like New Japan.

This is a perfectly valid point. But I think the great matches metric works fine for Flair and Bret. It doesn't work for every single "Who is better?" argument. It's a non-factor with Flair and Bret, as they both worked a full schedule for many years, and they both have a large body of accessible work. But Flair is a GOAT candidate, and Bret is in my top 50 at worst, so I think it's reasonable here. I don't want how I approach this to be mistaken. "Who is better?" is not a math problem where the highest number always wins. What I do is look at the peak run and compare. So I compare Flair's 1982-1989 with Bret's 1992-1997. Flair comes out ahead. We could go into the granular points of that. One reason I haven't isn't because I think it's self evident (although I do), but because actually walking through Flair's entire 80s run is a long project, and not something I could do in a quick message board response. Another reason is that I remain hopeful that we'll get 80s yearbooks at some point. It's one thing to watch a Mid South set and see some Flair matches pop up that are pretty good. It's another thing entirely to watch Flair pop up all over the place putting out strong performances in multiple settings all year long. Flair/Jumbo on April 24, 1985 and Flair/Kerry on April 27, 1985 are both very good, but not remarkable. Seeing what came before (Flair in All Japan for a series) and what came right after (Flair working Mid South for a week before heading to WCCW, doing awesome promos on TBS and Mid Atlantic TV in between) is what makes it impressive to me. There are cases when other factors come into play besides just "great matches" for sure. But I think it's the exception, not the rule. Debating wrestlers is an art, not a science, but striving for objectivity instead of feeling or personal enjoyment I think should be the goal, even if those things can't help but influence everyone's perspective.

I think Flair is better than Bret, but taking "the whole career into account" is not an argument I would advance in Flair's defense. I should clarify that I mean "the whole of his prime".

Ric Flair was the master at making other wrestlers look better than they really were. He's better at that than anyone in history. He had a formula, but it was a formula that could be applied to any wrestler, regardless of how good they were, and at a minimum produce a decent match. Sometimes, that limited the other greats. But it lifted up those who wouldn't have a lot to offer without it. I see a guy who could convince everyone in a building that he was very lucky to be champion. I see a guy who had a case for being the very best wrestler in the entire world every single year from 1982 to 1989, during a time period where there was stiff competition every single one of those years. I see a guy who had the career match with almost all of his top opponents during this timeframe. I see a guy who could get long matches out of people who tended to blow up otherwise. I see a wrestler who could carry limited wrestlers better than anyone in history. I see a wrestler who worked to steal the show every single time out, who never had a lazy performance that I've seen, and whose matches always got a big crowd reaction. I see a wrestler who could go from place to place without skipping a beat. Look at this stretch. 04/23/85 - Flair vs Choshu (All Japan) 04/24/85 - Flair vs Jumbo (All Japan) 04/27/85 - Flair vs Kerry (Mid South) 04/28/85 - Flair vs Taylor (Mid South) 05/03/85 - Flair vs Taylor (Houston) 05/05/85 - Flair vs Kevin (World Class) In a two week period, he headlined in All Japan, Mid South, Houston and World Class. Is every single match in that two week run a great one? Definitely not. But they are all good. And that's extremely impressive. Looking at each match individually, some hold up well and some don't. I can't make a blanket statement there. I can say I have enjoyed more than I haven't. Just like any wrestler, Flair is flawed. He has habits that can be annoying at times. On a micro level, quite a few guys are better. But when you take the whole of his career into account, I just don't see it for anyone else.

I always thought the announcers should have told the bar stories.

S.L.L. won. Punk still isn't as hated as he should be.

The point is that I'm not seeing the ability to separate who you would rather watch from who is better. Do you acknowledge that those are completely different things? My favorite wrestlers to watch right now are El Dandy, Dirty White Boy, Buddy Landell, Billy Joe Travis and Bobby Eaton? I could point to individual things in each of their performances that I think outshine Flair's performance in similar situations. It is perfectly fine that we view wrestling in different ways. Yours works for you, and I support that. We all have our favorites. I just wish there was an attempt at objectivity. When I'm debating who is better, I'm going to downplay my personal preferences and try to be fair. Is that wrong? Do you disagree with that?

This is why Flair is better than Bret. I personally think I, in general, do an okay job escaping the Great Matches paradigm without falling into the "What If" hole. It's okay if you disagree, and sure, I admit I'm also an island unto myself with how I look at wrestling, but I like to think I back up what I say at least a lot of the time, even if it ends up in some strange backwards language. The point is that the evidence is not there that Bret was better. It does exist in a fantasy land where Bret would have been NWA champ. It doesn't exist in his epic battles with Kwang on Coliseum Video.

I'm not a mark for Ric Flair. My opinion is an attempt to be objective. I'd rather watch about two dozen other guys than watch Flair. There's no "different perspective". You're simply tired of the existing one. Which is your problem, not Flair's.

Ric Flair liking to do Ric Flair things in the ring is somehow a problem. What do you want him to do - pretend to be someone else?

If we're overrating Flair, you are seriously underrating him.

No one would have known any of them though. It worked in Japan because shoot stuff was popular there. Only the top boxers would have worked, but Evander Holyfield wasn't going to be taking a jackhammer. WCW had Goldberg go through WCW's tough guys instead like Meng, Giant, etc., and it worked well. You introduce them first, just like you do anyone else who's trying to be pushed. I'm surprised that I'm really having to explain that wrestlers have to be introduced to an audience before people know who they are. It's funny that you mention Meng, because his tough guy rep is not known to a vast majority of fans.

Rather than ask what would happen if Flair died, I like the idea better of asking who would be better to follow Flair at the end of his run when his time was simply over. Let's assume the territories don't die, and that there is still a need for an NWA champ who can travel from place to place and work with everyone. In that scenario, maybe Flair passes the torch to Bret, who holds it until 1997 before passing it to Steve Austin. Maybe guys like Shawn Michaels and Vader have runs during that time as well, but their time is more transitional. Local heroes like Sting may occasionally get their cup of coffee too. 1988 is an odd year to pick because the territories were mostly dead by that point, and Flair was more of a company champ.

This is why Flair is better than Bret.

I do think if the NWA champ model existed into the 90s, Bret would have been the guy going all over the world and to various parts of the U.S. defending the title. And I think he would have done a fantastic job at it, possibly better than Flair himself.

I think they should have gone the New Japan route and paid a bunch of shooter types to do jobs to him. People thought Goldberg was more "real" than everyone else, which is what got him over. So that would have just added to it. Goldberg vs Don Frye would have been awesome. Shamrock coming in and doing a job after leaving the WWF would have been a nice touch too. The whole concept of tough guys - and the innate desire of wrestling fans to see someone take an ass whuppin' - is one of the things most lost on the modern scene.

Well, the best way to point out those things is to cite examples of matches where he has done them, which brings us back to the output argument eventually, does it not?

Here's the issue I'm noticing in this and other threads. ___ vs ___ can be read in a few ways. My way is so instinctive to me that it literally didn't occur to me that it's not how everyone sees these things. Insert your own jokes. * Who had the highest quantity of great matches with the most people in the most places? * Who would I rather watch wrestle? * Who was the more talented wrestler? Let's look at each of these: * Who had the highest quantity of great matches with the most people in the most places? This is my personal favorite approach, because I feel like it's the most grounded in reality. Yeah, wrestling, reality, quiet you. When push came to shove, who got the job done? Think of it like this. I used to be a corporate trainer by profession. One of my colleagues had been doing the job for over a decade and had trained for quite a few companies. I ran a few classes at my company. The people retained the material, I got good feedback and I was well-liked. I was able to make some changes that resulted in a better training program for new employees. She had some classes where she got positive feedback and some where she didn't. People liked her, but felt like they always knew exactly how each class was going to go. But she trained for Fortune 500 companies and startups alike. I used more role playing and games in my training classes. I used more humor. Every class she held was going to be PowerPoint presentations followed by a quiz. Some people may prefer to be trained by me, but career versus career, she's still a better Trainer. I can't be better than her because I'll never train for so many companies and be sought after in so many places. Maybe if I were going from company to company, I would deliver great training classes and surpass her. But I didn't. So I'm not better. * Who would I rather watch wrestle? I would rather listen to cheesy 80s synth pop than The Beatles most of the time. It's fun mood music. My play count on Soft Cell songs may be higher than my play count on Beatles songs. But I'm not going to argue that Soft Cell is better than the Beatles - just that I'd rather listen to them. In a thread like this, I'd still vote for The Beatles, because I can separate my personal tastes from the big picture. * Who was the more talented wrestler? Prince was an accomplished songwriter. He produced his own albums and sometimes played every instrument and did his own backup vocals and lead vocals. He has an incredible vocal range, encompassing some pretty high falsetto and a deep baritone. He has some amazing songs. He may be the most talented pop artist that ever lived. But is he the *best* pop artist that ever lived? He is a better musician than anyone in The Beatles, but should Prince rank ahead of the Beatles on anyone's all-time list? Prince is great, awesome and tons of other positive superlatives. But when I look at the run of albums and number one singles, I can't rightfully say Prince is better than the Beatles. Even if I'd rather listen to him, and even if I think he was more talented.

Those are the only Ric Flair matches you like. And you would rank Shawn Michaels, Ted DiBiase, Curt Hennig and Tito Santana ahead of Flair.