Ric Flair

[Johnny Sorrow]

Just consider Flair's "not adapting " as character work and then it's awesome. Here's the greatest of all time and he has a hard time changing, but he's still the fucking Nature Boy. It's a great chapter of the story.

[MJH]

The thing with comparing wrestlers as they get older, even without taking injuries into account, is that most guys adopt part-time schedules into their forties (Flair didn't); but even moreso, if instead of aging them by their DOB you aged them in # of matches worked or # of minutes in-ring, Tenryu would have to work pretty regularly until he's, what, 100+? to match Flair. It's also worth wondering just how could Flair have adapted - his character was so fucking famous and such a part of his act that...

 

I should point out that I'm not considering Flair for #1 at all (though he's not too far down the list by any means, indeed I'd be surprised to have him outside my Top 10), nor do I put as much stock in longevity as others might, but... Flair at 50 has a lot more mileage on him than Lawler, Tenryu, or Terry and that's not something people can ignore I don't think.

 

But what were the odds on Flair running away in the lead with replies in his thread, -10000?

[Timbo Slice]

I was just coming in to post what MJH said. The sheer volume of matches Flair compiled in his heyday puts a lot of other guy's to shame.

[BillThompson]

It's a given that Flair will make my list, but I tend to side more with Matt when it comes to his late career output. To be frank, Flair isn't very good post-2000 or so, and that does negatively effect his standing. We are looking at the entire careers of wrestlers after all, and because of that I'm not willing to give Flair a pass for substandard output just because he was older.

[stomperspc]

It's a given that Flair will make my list, but I tend to side more with Matt when it comes to his late career output. To be frank, Flair isn't very good post-2000 or so, and that does negatively effect his standing. We are looking at the entire careers of wrestlers after all, and because of that I'm not willing to give Flair a pass for substandard output just because he was older.

 

We are looking at their entire careers, but context is important.

 

The overwhelming majority of pro wrestlers are not wrestling a full time schedule on national TV as 55 year olds. To diminish Flair’s career in any significant way because he was a poor wrestler at a time when most wrestlers are retired and those that aren’t are generally pretty bad doesn’t make sense. Doing so essentially means you are placing value on a wrestler getting out at the “right” time and I don’t see how that is relevant to a discussion of the greatest wrestler of all time.

 

I think it makes sense to compare Flair’s post-50 output to other 50+ year old wrestlers, IF the rest of those wrestlers’ careers compare favorably to the rest of Flair's career. Wrestlers like Terry Funk and Lawler were clearly better at an older age than Flair. If I had Funk & Flair neck-and-neck over their careers to that point, Funk’s work at an old age would give him the edge. If I think Flair was a better worker as Funk for the bulk of their career, the fact that Funk was better than Flair at an age where most guys are retired and the majority that aren’t are not very good, doesn’t hold much weight in my evaluation. Flair’s WWE career as a guy in his mid-50’s shouldn’t be dismissed, but it has to be viewed in the proper context. If someone is deciding between Flair and Funk/Lawler at #5 on their list, then absolutely their 50+ work comes into play. If someone just generally drops Flair down a few pegs because he wasn’t a good 55 year old wrestler, I don’t agree with that.

 

This is not a perfect example, but Hank Aaron had an OPS+ of 95 and 102 in his age 40 and 41 seasons. Raul Ibanez had an OPS+ of 103 and 122 at those same ages in about double the number of plate appearances. Ibanez gets bonus points from me for being a good hitter at an older age. Aaron’s career is not diminished in my eyes because he was an average-ish hitter at a time when most hitters are retired or poor hitters. Funk/Lawler get bonus points for being good wrestlers at an older age. Flair’s career is not diminished because he was a below average wrestler at a time when most wrestlers are retired or below average.

[Childs]

 

It's a given that Flair will make my list, but I tend to side more with Matt when it comes to his late career output. To be frank, Flair isn't very good post-2000 or so, and that does negatively effect his standing. We are looking at the entire careers of wrestlers after all, and because of that I'm not willing to give Flair a pass for substandard output just because he was older.

I think it makes sense to compare Flair’s post-50 output to other 50+ year old wrestlers, IF the rest of those wrestlers’ careers compare favorably to the rest of Flair's career. Wrestlers like Terry Funk and Lawler were clearly better at an older age than Flair. If I had Funk & Flair neck-and-neck over their careers to that point, Funk’s work at an old age would give him the edge. If I think Flair was a better worker as Funk for the bulk of their career, the fact that Funk was better than Flair at an age where most guys are retired and the majority that aren’t are not very good, doesn’t hold much weight in my evaluation. Flair’s WWE career as a guy in his mid-50’s shouldn’t be dismissed, but it has to be viewed in the proper context. If someone is deciding between Flair and Funk/Lawler at #5 on their list, then absolutely their 50+ work comes into play. If someone just generally drops Flair down a few pegs because he wasn’t a good 55 year old wrestler, I don’t agree with that.

 

 

Well said, almost exactly how I feel about this issue.

[Timbo Slice]

It's not a pass because of substandard output.

 

It's whether or not that substandard output takes so much away from the stretch where he was considered great.

 

It's an easy comparison, but Jordan wasn't that great with the Wizards and people are quick to forget about it because of what he did from 91-98.

 

My argument about Flair is that a lot of people talk him down from his high horse because of what he did later in his career without considering what he did when he was at his best. Basically that whatever Flair did post-Hogan arriving in WCW was crap.

 

And because Lawler and Funk and Tenryu and Fujiwara had some great late-career performances that Flair gets penalized for not being as great as them later in their career. Where if you compare the best of Flair and the best of the other guys when they were at their peaks, then it's a much more difficult decision to make.

 

I'm definitely not against taking in the entirety of someone's career, but I'm definitely against weighing the bad stuff that happens later in the career for the sake of outliers. Careers aren't all built the same. Some wrestlers age gracefully, others burn out too quickly. But just because a few did age gracefully doesn't mean they all have to.

[Matt D]

I think you guys are missing the point. It's not about the performance in and of itself but instead about what can be learned from it, the choices made, the ability to adapt, the understanding of craft behind that ability. Why does one wrestler have better late career performances than another? Why does one adapt and another not? That's the point of it.

 

The why.

 

It's an element of versatility and there are clues there to explain performances from earlier in a career. Seeing someone late in their career can help explain how they see wrestling and how well they understood what they were doing earlier in their career and how well they can handle limitations. You have to factor in context but then you always do.

 

To me it's not about output; it's about understanding. I'm not counting the number of bad matches and dividing by pi. I'm trying to understand how a human being interfaces with his craft.

[ohtani's jacket]

Sounds like a bunch of guesswork.

[Matt D]

It's all guess work. This is us trying to find patterns and understand things when we never have total information. That's why every bit of viewable data and every different situation we can see a wrestler in helps.

[WingedEagle]

Whether you found a match good or great, or bad or average, isn't guesswork. Why it turned out that way absolutely is very much guesswork that can only be somewhat reduced by hearing from the participants, booker and anyone else responsible for laying it out.

[Matt D]

Or by watching a ton of matches and seeing different wrestlers in different situations and trying to find patterns and understandings.

 

That's why we are doing a greatest wrestler of all time poll and not just a greatest matches one.

 

Otherwise it would be a strictly numerical exercise.

[WingedEagle]

How great can someone be if their talent didn't translate to great matches? I'm not asking facetiously, actually curious how you're resolving that kind of discrepancy.

[Matt D]

Mainly, that is not an issue because we are dealing with the best of the best here. Almost everyone in this argument has both great matches and great performances. There are situational constraints to consider however. We have talked about this elsewhere.

 

I think it is more interesting if you invert the question you just asked. Then it becomes "if someone has great matches, how can they not be great?"

 

That is a tougher question for me to deal with. It comes back to subjectivity though. Usually I want to know what a wrestler did to make a match great.

 

Regardless, I am not looking for the wrestler who has the highest number of great matches on tape. I am looking for the wrestler who I think is the greatest using what matches we have as evidence and what the Wrestler does in those matches as evidence. More later if you really want it but I can't imagine anyone wants it at this point. The old wrestler stuff really does tie in to my views however.

[Loss]

I'm splitting off all the theoretical stuff. Let's try to keep these threads on target and talk about Flair instead of our criteria.

[Loss]

Actually, all this stuff overlaps so much that there's no way to separate it. Can I just ask that we just talk about Ric Flair and his career in this thread? Save the more abstract points for the 'Your own criteria' thread, please.

[Shining Wiz]

Any chance of splitting the theory threads off into the main sub folder?

[Matt D]

Is anyone going to vote for Flair just because they think he has the most great matches on tape? I'm honestly curious. Likewise Misawa or Hansen or whatever other candidate someone might feel that way about? Is anyone looking this as a purely numerical exercise and will vote for Flair for that reason? And it's a matter of people digging up obscure matches with other guys or what not?

[dawho5]

I wouldn't put together a ballot without comprehensive watchings of anyone I considered for my top 150. Which means I probably won't. Doesn't mean I don't want to be part of the discussion for wrestlers I have seen a ton of.

[Loss]

Any chance of splitting the theory threads off into the main sub folder?

 

People say things about Flair within those posts that should be kept here. That was my dilemma.

[BigBadMick]

Is anyone going to vote for Flair just because they think he has the most great matches on tape? I'm honestly curious. Likewise Misawa or Hansen or whatever other candidate someone might feel that way about? Is anyone looking this as a purely numerical exercise and will vote for Flair for that reason? And it's a matter of people digging up obscure matches with other guys or what not?

I'm not Matt, but I understand why you're asking. A lot of threads here list the peak years/feuds/matches of the specific wrestlers career. I'm using that as a jumping off point and nothing else.

 

On a different note (and I don't think this contradicts the above), what's the general feeling on Flair's 70s stuff? Really haven't gotten into it a great deal, nor heard much discussion of it so far.

[Matt D]

I WISH we had so much more Flair/Valentine tag work.

[BillThompson]

 

 

It's a given that Flair will make my list, but I tend to side more with Matt when it comes to his late career output. To be frank, Flair isn't very good post-2000 or so, and that does negatively effect his standing. We are looking at the entire careers of wrestlers after all, and because of that I'm not willing to give Flair a pass for substandard output just because he was older.

I think it makes sense to compare Flair’s post-50 output to other 50+ year old wrestlers, IF the rest of those wrestlers’ careers compare favorably to the rest of Flair's career. Wrestlers like Terry Funk and Lawler were clearly better at an older age than Flair. If I had Funk & Flair neck-and-neck over their careers to that point, Funk’s work at an old age would give him the edge. If I think Flair was a better worker as Funk for the bulk of their career, the fact that Funk was better than Flair at an age where most guys are retired and the majority that aren’t are not very good, doesn’t hold much weight in my evaluation. Flair’s WWE career as a guy in his mid-50’s shouldn’t be dismissed, but it has to be viewed in the proper context. If someone is deciding between Flair and Funk/Lawler at #5 on their list, then absolutely their 50+ work comes into play. If someone just generally drops Flair down a few pegs because he wasn’t a good 55 year old wrestler, I don’t agree with that.

 

 

Well said, almost exactly how I feel about this issue.

 

 

It's the same approach I take with actors, directors, etc. Being older isn't bad in and of itself, but if you are still wrestling at 55 and your matches aren't that good then it does negatively effect your overall career. I just can't look at someone's career and not see the whole package. The thing that helps most wrestlers is that an overwhelming majority of them get worse in their twilight years. That way most of them are on an even playing field of sorts.

[ohtani's jacket]

There's a lot of workers who people continue to like when they grow older and give a free pass to on things like execution and speed. I do this all the time with Charlie Lucero, for example. I'm kind of skeptical about how much these guys adapt. Unless they transform themselves into a completely different worker like Navarro did, I'd argue that most guys are doing what they've always done only at half speed and that people dig it because it's old school.

 

A lot of the problem with Flair is that he looks worse than Keith Richards, which ruins the entire gimmick. Other workers can get old and out of shape and be praised for being a curmudgeon, but Flair was like an aging Sinatra.

 

How could he have adapted and made it work? That's a more interesting question for mine. I mean Bock kept in tremendous physical shape and was still a great looking guy into his 50s. How could Flair have kept up keeping in mind he had been over exposed?

[NintendoLogic]

There are plenty of artists and actors who were as good or better at their craft in middle age than in their youth. However, there isn't a single wrestler I know of who was better in his fifties than he was in his thirties. Why is this? Do wrestlers get dumber as they get older? Or is there a physical component to wrestling that overrides understanding and ability to adapt and any other mental factor? Given that, I think that post-prime work should be viewed as the equivalent of extra credit-something that can't count against you, only for you.