Fair for Flair: a mini-series

[Loss]

I've seen clips of a match against Austin Idol where he looked like he was working just as hard as ever. Flair-Race from Central States also made tape at least once and that match is really good, although Missing Link as Flair's second is very weird.

[JerryvonKramer]

Don't we have Flair in places like Hawaii and Portland? Hardly massive markets in his mind. I don't think you can make any assumptions about Ric phoning it in if he didn't like the town. He also says he hated working with Jumbo and most of us like those matches a good deal.

 

But once again, things are flipped, I talked about Funk phoning it in for South West matches (Dory did too), and somehow it's back to Flair allegedly phoning it in. Funny how it happens.

[shoe]

Flair worked the Bullet and I wasn't a fan. It wasn't from not working hard on Flair's part.

[Loss]

Flair and Kerry had their best match on tape together in Hawaii. Not only does Flair-Hack Sawyer from Portland get praised, it gets praised as the type of Flair match people wish they saw more of.

[thebrainfollower]

Jerry I do see why that frustrates you. But you have to suck it up and deal. Because if you are right and if Flair is the GOAT that is what will happen. He will face greater scrutiny than anyone else, maybe even unfairly so. That is what comes with being a GOAT in anything. It is part of the package.

 

Please note at no point did I ever say Flair isn't the GOAT because of this. I'm saying it IS something he did wrong, it MIGHT hurt his case and he WOULD have been better off if he didn't do stuff like that.

[goodhelmet]

OK, I have done my homework and have lots to say on a podcast with Parv.

 

On Spanish pronunciations, Jose or Boricua may correct me but here is somethign super simple about the Spanish language. The single vowels don't have multiple sounds like English.

 

A is always Ahhhhh

 

E is always Ayyyyy

 

I is always Eeeee

 

O is always Ohhh

 

U is always ooooh

 

Santo - Sahhhnnn-toe

Pirata - Peeerahhtah

[El Boricua]

OK, I have done my homework and have lots to say on a podcast with Parv.

 

On Spanish pronunciations, Jose or Boricua may correct me but here is somethign super simple about the Spanish language. The single vowels don't have multiple sounds like English.

 

A is always Ahhhhh

 

E is always Ayyyyy

 

I is always Eeeee

 

O is always Ohhh

 

U is always ooooh

 

Santo - Sahhhnnn-toe

Pirata - Peeerahhtah

You are correct about the vowels. I have a co-worker who was born in the U.S. but moved here to Puerto Rico around age 9 and had to learn Spanish. She said it became easier for her once she realized that the vowels were always short pronunciation. So my advice when learning Spanish is to short the vowels when pronouncing.

[pantherwagner]

 

OK, I have done my homework and have lots to say on a podcast with Parv.

 

On Spanish pronunciations, Jose or Boricua may correct me but here is somethign super simple about the Spanish language. The single vowels don't have multiple sounds like English.

 

A is always Ahhhhh

 

E is always Ayyyyy

 

I is always Eeeee

 

O is always Ohhh

 

U is always ooooh

 

Santo - Sahhhnnn-toe

Pirata - Peeerahhtah

You are correct about the vowels. I have a co-worker who was born in the U.S. but moved here to Puerto Rico around age 9 and had to learn Spanish. She said it became easier for her once she realized that the vowels were always short pronunciation. So my advice when learning Spanish is to short the vowels when pronouncing.

 

 

That advice is spot on. This is because it's a syllable-timed language (where every syllable takes up the same amount of time to pronounce) while English is stress-timed. Once English speakers get the concept of syllable-timing their pronounciation becomes ten times better.

 

It's the other way around for Spanish speakers who learn English: you'll notice how there's barely a difference in how some pronounce fifty to fifteen, because stress-timing is not natural to us.

 

Otherwise Spanish is a very easy language to pronounce, as every syllable is always pronounced the same way.

[supremebve]

I think the biggest strength and weakness for Flair in the Greatest Wrestler Ever project is that we've all seen so much Flair footage. We've seen so much Flair that it is easy to praise him as the best, because we've seen so many classic matches. It is equally to call him overrated, because we've seen him wrestle his broomstick matches so many times. It is almost unfair to compare him to anyone else. Flair wrestled damn near everyone from damn near everywhere, and a whole shitload of it is on tape. While I see him as someone who consistently put on good to great matches for 15-20 years, I can see why someone could be bored as hell watching some of his matches. I love Flair. I love his matches, his promos, his character, and just what he means to wrestling. He's no doubt in my top 5 all time, but it is very hard for me to get excited about a new Flair match. I'm much more excited to watch a new Jumbo Tsuruta match that I've never seen, I'd much rather rewatch a big AJPW match from the 90s than a big Flair match from the 80s, but I don't really think that is Flair's fault. I can't hold it against Flair that he's basically been the most visible wrestler of my life. I grew up on Flair, I watched him as a kid, a teenager, and an adult. I've rewatched his matches with Steamboat, Funk, Luger, Windham, and Sting probably 20-30 times each. It is so easy to pick him apart, but I honestly think it is because everything he does is so familiar. This is one of those how many times can you eat the same meal before you start hating it situations. It isn't the chicken's fault you've eaten it hundreds of times, but it doesn't mean you haven't grown to dislike it either.

[JerryvonKramer]

Part 5 added to the OP:

 

Part 5: The Thunderdome

 

https://soundcloud.com/jerryvonkramer/fair-for-flair-5

 

 

In a special unscheduled Part 5, Parv welcomes Good Ol' Will from Texas to debate some of the claims made in parts 1-4. A good range of topics are covered including: psychology, great match theory, how to assess candidates, the importance of different styles, subjectivity, Jerry Lawler, peak vs. longevity, burnout and much more. Strap yourselves in, it's gonna be a bumpy night.

[SlingshotSuplex]

Nikita was a super over heel v. Magnum in '86. He didn't have to sell as much, could rely on power spots, and his juiced up killer aura (his biggest asset). Vs. Flair in the fall, he was a face, which didn't play to any of these strengths. No, I don't think the Flair v. Nikita matches were fantastic, but it's not a directly applicable comparison.

 

Flair never went away . . . but never got truly rejected by his audience, something that can't be said about Hogan and many other all time greats.

 

Coincidentally, I had just listened to the Flair/Lawler/Funk Wrestling Culture episode where Will made similar Lawler arguments. In both shows, there's tons of extrapolating to get many of Flair's great matches into "just good" matches (or not as impressive due to the level of competition) and Lawler's "good programs" into all-time great matches. Lawler is a deserved all-time great, but I don't see the same level of scrunity being appied to his credentials. As far as Lawler being a guy, like Flair & Funk, who could go into any environment and get over, Lawler didn't do as well in Japan, the one place where his style wasn't a fit. Lawler got over where he could get over as Jerry Lawler being great at Jerry Lawler. Flair & Funk were more successful at adapting to their environment.

[JerryvonKramer]

Yeah sling, what I was getting at by him having to "relativise" the argument. You put it better than me I think.

[SlingshotSuplex]

Yeah sling, what I was getting at by him having to "relativise" the argument. You put it better than me I think.

I don't mean to pick on Will, but he certainly argues his case with fervor. He makes a strong case for Lawler's virtues, but when faced with his weaknesses, he relates to emotional preference and implies the weaknesses don't matter. Flair's every weakness is scrutinized (as it should be if we're making a case for all-time great), but it feels like Lawler's are taken off the table. I'd love to see him examine them, as I'm sure he'd make a great case. For me, the bottom line is the case for Flair holds up to scrutiny. Even when we acknowledge his flaws, the mountain of evidence left standing preserves his spot.

[Loss]

The Lawler getting over in different environments argument is interesting, because he seemed to struggle in Florida, Southwest, Georgia, PWUSA and Japan. He did get over in the WWF, AWA and Texas. I don't think that's a knock against him because he worked in the environment he needed to work, and I think stepping outside the goal posts of Memphis isn't really important to Lawler's case. Nothing he did outside of Memphis should make or break him. But I also wouldn't argue getting over in different environments as something that favors him, and certainly not more than a Funk, Flair, Hogan, Abdullah, Dusty, the Freebirds, the Road Warriors or even someone like Ted DiBiase, Kevin Sullivan or Dynamite Kid.

[jdw]

Jerry I do see why that frustrates you. But you have to suck it up and deal. Because if you are right and if Flair is the GOAT that is what will happen. He will face greater scrutiny than anyone else, maybe even unfairly so. That is what comes with being a GOAT in anything. It is part of the package.

 

Ric has been thought of as the GoaT since the 80s. He's been facing this scrutiny for 20+ years. Winning or not winning this poll changes nothing in that regard. Just as winning/not winning the last GWE poll changed nothing. In another 20 years there will be discussions just like this.

[jdw]

Flair never went away . . . but never got truly rejected by his audience, something that can't be said about Hogan and many other all time greats.

 

I think the "rejected by his audience" is a bit problematic when one looks at JCP's drawing in 1987 & 1988 compared to 1986.

 

We can blame that on any number of things, and it's easy to never blame Our Hero Ric for anything related to the decline and (repeated) fall(s) of JCP and WCW. But the 10K+ who would come out to see Ric and the crew in 1986 dropped to embarrassing (for a Flair Fan at the time like me) numbers as the decade went on.

 

If we try to limit Flair's "audience" to just his most hardcore fans, on some level they rejected him by the turn of the decade. 1,800 turned up for a Flair-Lex in Greenboro in 1990, and 700 turned out for a Flair-Simmons cage match in the middle of the Doom vs Horsemen feud. Ric was the face in both. That's kind of a rejection, even among the hardcores.

 

I'm not so sure that Hogan's similar fans, the hardcore Hulkamanics, similarly deserted him. His numbers weren't great in the early days of WCW, but one needs to remember that WCW wasn't *his* fans. WCW wasn't all that great getting WWF Fans to wander away from the WWF at that point. They really weren't that great at it until Hogan turned heal.

 

On the other hand, back in the WWF as the heel against the #1 face in the promotion (Rock) in a baseball stadium, what did "his fans" do? They turned him babyface in the match and Rock at the very height of his popularity into being the heel.

 

I don't think Flair Fans showed up at a later Mania in large enough numbers to turn Taker the Heel and Ric the Face in their match.

 

* * * * *

 

I do agree with the sentiment that the hardest of the hardcore Flair Fans have never rejected Flair. I was a hardcore Flair Fans and have been excommunicated from Flair Fandom for pointing out that at times Ric's shit does actually stink. You'd still see stuff from Ric's last run in the WWF, and even in TNA, that "he's better than most on the roster" even when having a match that wasn't good. So on that level... yeah, there are fans of is that haven't rejected him. He's a bit like religion in that way... forgetting of course St. Paul and his rejections.

[JerryvonKramer]

jdw, if you haven't listened to the show, you should post all this in the Flair thread over at the GWE section. Cheers.

[Grimmas]

jdw, if you haven't listened to the show, you should post all this in the Flair thread over at the GWE section. Cheers.

Don't agree. If they are debating points that others are making that is very fair.

[KrisZ]

The Lawler getting over in different environments argument is interesting, because he seemed to struggle in Florida, Southwest, Georgia, PWUSA and Japan. He did get over in the WWF, AWA and Texas. I don't think that's a knock against him because he worked in the environment he needed to work, and I think stepping outside the goal posts of Memphis isn't really important to Lawler's case. Nothing he did outside of Memphis should make or break him. But I also wouldn't argue getting over in different environments as something that favors him, and certainly not more than a Funk, Flair, Hogan, Abdullah, Dusty, the Freebirds, the Road Warriors or even someone like Ted DiBiase, Kevin Sullivan or Dynamite Kid.

 

Lawler got over in Florida & Southwest because they kept bringing him back and put him in main events especially Florida......and this is with him not even working their TV

[goc]

Yea I don't really know where the "Lawler didn't get over in Southwest" talking point is even coming from. He's over with the crowds on the little bit of footage we have of him in Southwest. He was used as an outside talent to work main events, he was never going to be a regular. Judging his "run" on how often he worked/how long he stayed there would be a flawed metric.

[goodhelmet]

I will respond to all points tomorrow but tonight is the wife's birthday so it will have to wait.

[Dylan Waco]

I listened to the show with Charles and really enjoyed it. Obviously I have some disagreements and comments to make so here goes.

 

One thing that actually wasn't addressed that I do want to note is that I think the laziest criticism of Flair is actually the implication that formula is bad. I think arguing that Flair doesn't have a formula is just silly. He clearly does. No he doesn't apply it in every match, but he absolutely does have a sort of match where he plugs in guys and just goes. That said I don't think that is a negative in of itself. In fact I think formula is good in wrestling. Formula and go to spots are necessary for a match to have truly great psychology. The formula is there to be deviated, altered from, or built upon. It is the template that you add on to. Without it wrestling would be disorganized chaos and/or a perverse form of gymnastics. No thanks. There are certainly things about an over-reliance on formula, stand pat spots, that can be criticized, but "Flair Formula" strikes me as a dogshit criticism, and maybe the worst example of people not being fair to Flair.

 

On the particulars of the show and going in no particular order....

 

At one point Loss noted that only Shawn Michaels has been dissected as much as Flair. I'm not positive that is true, but I don't think it's far off. What interests me here is the way this criticism of Michaels was acknowledged but not really discussed. I get why (It's a Flair podcast), but my point is that everything said about Flair by Parv and Loss, would be said by Michaels fans about Shawn. It happens that Loss and Parv agree with at least some of the criticisms of Shawn so...is Shawn treated unfairly by being analyzed so deeply, or is it okay in that case because you agree with the criticisms? There are a lot of parallels between Shawn and Flair, and I actually think they are worth discussing, in part because I think it may shed some extra light on why both guys have their reps (both good and bad).

 

One thing that I thought was interesting was the argument that seemed to run throughout, particularly from Loss, that it might be possible others were better than Flair (Hansen, Jumbo, Casas, et.) but people either hadn't done the legwork and/or he personally had seen enough footage to ascertain whether or not this was true. This is consistent with Loss general view about the project (which I strongly disagree with, and don't want to rehash, other than to note as an aside that I think it is VASTLY harder to rank matches than wrestlers), but what really jumps out to me when thinking about it is the fact that the argument almost felt like "Flair is the best because we have seen the most from him." I'm not arguing for or against that, it just stood out because it seemed an odd sentiment to express when one of the general arguments I've seen made before is that Flair is unfairly criticized because we've seen the most from him.

 

Parv brought up the issue of objectivity within the GWE project a few times, once at the end, and another time when talking about particular things that some people have dismissed as being irrelevant (execution in the case of Tenryu). His summation seemed to be that the project needs to be based on something other than gut feeling, and while I agree, I also think his sports analogy was way off for one obvious reason - there is no agreed upon criteria in wrestling. Even more than that, the categories of work for lack of a better term aren't even well defined and full fleshed out, and probably never will be. Even on this podcast Loss made a great point about Flair being excellent at "evasion" spots. I agree with him, but if you try to create buckets of criteria to count up points in what the hell bucket does that go in? Timing? Maybe, but it feels more special and unique than just that. Selling? Well it does involve being expressive but...no. Bumping? It's not really a bump to "fall" out of the way. The point is that it doesn't neatly fit anywhere. The bigger point is that I might think selling is the absolute most important trait in wrestling (I do), but not all selling is created equal, different people need to sell different ways, and what even constitutes selling is something that is highly debatable. I think you can try to be objective via analysis, recognizing there are exceptions to certain rules, and that in some cases there are no rules, without fixing yourself into trying to rank wrestlers via a match equation, or system of quasi-scientific categorization. I'm a humanities guy, I have no interest in that at all.

 

One final thought on the discussion surrounding Flair pairing down his offense and not getting credit for it. To be honest I thought that was one of the weaker aspects of the show. I understood the argument, but it came across as an attempt at a "gotcha!" moment that badly missed the point. I personally don't care all that much that Flair dropped most of his offense late in his career, even though I do think it hurt his matches to a degree. What bothers me far more is what he didn't drop - his stock "defensive" spots that he was no longer capable of executing well. This is why the pairing down argument fails to me. The reality is Flair dropped stuff that would have helped his matches, and were easier to execute, in lieu of keeping stock defensive spots that he physically couldn't do well anymore. Some of that may have been beyond his control, but this wasn't a guy adapting to his limitations and sticking with what he did well. This was a guy stuck in his old ways, who couldn't do to do things poorly because that's what he had always done.

[goodhelmet]

Dylan, great post. On the issue of criteria, Parv and I go in depth on criteria and how critical it is in evaluating wrestlers. In that sense, the issue was addressed but one podcast later.

 

We also discussed the idea of Flair not being able to hit his signature spots later on.

[Loss]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Dylan. There are some things I'd like to clarify, some areas where I disagree and believe it or not, some areas where I would concede the point and agree with you. I'll post a full response in the morning.

[Loss]

What the heck, I'm motivated to respond now.

 

 

At one point Loss noted that only Shawn Michaels has been dissected as much as Flair. I'm not positive that is true, but I don't think it's far off. What interests me here is the way this criticism of Michaels was acknowledged but not really discussed. I get why (It's a Flair podcast), but my point is that everything said about Flair by Parv and Loss, would be said by Michaels fans about Shawn. It happens that Loss and Parv agree with at least some of the criticisms of Shawn so...is Shawn treated unfairly by being analyzed so deeply, or is it okay in that case because you agree with the criticisms? There are a lot of parallels between Shawn and Flair, and I actually think they are worth discussing, in part because I think it may shed some extra light on why both guys have their reps (both good and bad).

I like the deep analysis of Flair. I like the deep analysis of Shawn. I only think they are being treated unfairly in the sense that I'd like to see more guys go through the ringer. I don't think the answer is to scale back how we look at Flair or Shawn as much as it is to go deeper on how we look at everyone else. I see some steps in that direction and I hope we eventually get there. It would be awesome to have that same level of scrutiny for everyone, or at the very least, everyone who is generally considered to be in the GOAT conversation. Everyone is going to have flaws, in some cases very deep ones that matter, but to me, you know a guy is the real deal when his flaws have been given plenty of sunlight and have been mulled over by both his critics and supporters, but they don't subtract from the general opinion. You put someone like Lawler through that ringer, for example, and I think appreciation of him only increases.

Flair and Shawn were similar wrestlers, but where I think they differ is that I don't think they had the same strengths and weaknesses. I don't think I'd criticize Shawn for being too predictable overall, except maybe in his comeback. Part of that is that he spent more time working tag teams exclusively than Flair ever did, and he popularized so many gimmick matches in WWE that they can't help but be different. His career had more distinct phases and reinventions than Flair's. I'd say the most common criticisms of Shawn are that he has weak-looking offense and that as a babyface, he stops selling when it's time to get to his comeback and negates all the work done in the match to that point. The weak-looking offense critique isn't something that I have really seen directed at Flair, and I don't think that one really applies to him anyway. Flair's offensive peak was probably the early 1980s when he was solid on the mat, had a nice variety of suplexes and hadn't paired down his leg work. In fact, the point that I really stopped considering Flair a great worker (I no longer saw him as one of the best in the world, but still viewed him as a great worker) was when he started using the belly-to-back suplex as his sole setup move for the figure four. But even as Flair limited his offense, I don't think what remained started looking less convincing. I do think their general philosophy on how to present themselves as juicers and bumpers was similar, but when I look at the holes that have been poked in both guys, I don't see many similarities because I think their sensibilities were actually pretty far apart. Perhaps I'm overlooking something.

 

One thing that I thought was interesting was the argument that seemed to run throughout, particularly from Loss, that it might be possible others were better than Flair (Hansen, Jumbo, Casas, et.) but people either hadn't done the legwork and/or he personally had seen enough footage to ascertain whether or not this was true. This is consistent with Loss general view about the project (which I strongly disagree with, and don't want to rehash, other than to note as an aside that I think it is VASTLY harder to rank matches than wrestlers), but what really jumps out to me when thinking about it is the fact that the argument almost felt like "Flair is the best because we have seen the most from him." I'm not arguing for or against that, it just stood out because it seemed an odd sentiment to express when one of the general arguments I've seen made before is that Flair is unfairly criticized because we've seen the most from him.

I think that's a very fair point. Yeah, I hated even mentioning my stance on the GWE project again, but it seemed relevant. Still, I tried to gloss over it. Fair or not, as an admin of the board, it's different saying something like that than just being a poster, and what I said a year ago I don't necessarily regret because I still think it, but I wish I hadn't said it in the context I did. I admit that a lot of the self consciousness from some about casting a ballot can be traced back to that. And while I have different ideas about that, I don't want to be the reason that people start doubting whether they should get involved. I only meant to speak for myself. If anyone is still on the fence because of what I said, please, let my hang-ups be mine alone. Cast a ballot if you want. Have fun.

 

Parv brought up the issue of objectivity within the GWE project a few times, once at the end, and another time when talking about particular things that some people have dismissed as being irrelevant (execution in the case of Tenryu). His summation seemed to be that the project needs to be based on something other than gut feeling, and while I agree, I also think his sports analogy was way off for one obvious reason - there is no agreed upon criteria in wrestling. Even more than that, the categories of work for lack of a better term aren't even well defined and full fleshed out, and probably never will be. Even on this podcast Loss made a great point about Flair being excellent at "evasion" spots. I agree with him, but if you try to create buckets of criteria to count up points in what the hell bucket does that go in? Timing? Maybe, but it feels more special and unique than just that. Selling? Well it does involve being expressive but...no. Bumping? It's not really a bump to "fall" out of the way. The point is that it doesn't neatly fit anywhere. The bigger point is that I might think selling is the absolute most important trait in wrestling (I do), but not all selling is created equal, different people need to sell different ways, and what even constitutes selling is something that is highly debatable. I think you can try to be objective via analysis, recognizing there are exceptions to certain rules, and that in some cases there are no rules, without fixing yourself into trying to rank wrestlers via a match equation, or system of quasi-scientific categorization. I'm a humanities guy, I have no interest in that at all.

I do think it's possible that a wrestler can be so exceptionally great in one area that the areas where they lack become unimportant. In fact, I think that's something I'd even say for Flair. I would even go as far to say that I want that in great wrestlers. Brad Armstrong is an example where the sum of the parts is more than the whole, but to me, all of the true greats find a way to exceed the combined list of their paper qualities. I think what we were attempting to refer to here more than an objective set of standards is that naming our favorite wrestler ever, or our most watchable wrestler ever, seems like something very different than naming the greatest wrestler ever. It's not that it is objective, because it's not. It can't be. It's that it's something closer to objective. I like the idea of aiming for objectivity even knowing it's impossible and that I will fail. Still, I tried and I approached it with that framework.

That said, that doesn't have to be the way everyone approaches this. If I was submitting a ballot, Manami Toyota would be in my top ten not because she's one of my favorites to watch or she works a style that appeals to me personally, but because she defined the way workers performed for a generation, had influence that spilled outside of her generation and was an active participant in many of the greatest matches in wrestling history.

I will admit that's an interesting take, because it's approaching this almost like a Hall of Fame ballot where ranking isn't done on work alone, but rather on the influence and impact of that work. Then again, I do think a lot of the criticisms we throw at the WON HOF apply to how we are doing GWE. I won't elaborate on that here, but if someone really wants to have that argument, they can start a thread and call me out and I'll explain.

 

One final thought on the discussion surrounding Flair pairing down his offense and not getting credit for it. To be honest I thought that was one of the weaker aspects of the show. I understood the argument, but it came across as an attempt at a "gotcha!" moment that badly missed the point. I personally don't care all that much that Flair dropped most of his offense late in his career, even though I do think it hurt his matches to a degree. What bothers me far more is what he didn't drop - his stock "defensive" spots that he was no longer capable of executing well. This is why the pairing down argument fails to me. The reality is Flair dropped stuff that would have helped his matches, and were easier to execute, in lieu of keeping stock defensive spots that he physically couldn't do well anymore. Some of that may have been beyond his control, but this wasn't a guy adapting to his limitations and sticking with what he did well. This was a guy stuck in his old ways, who couldn't do to do things poorly because that's what he had always done.

This is a point I'll concede. I think the whole idea of signature bumps needed to be re-thought when wrestling expanded nationally, at least if the company in which the wrestler was working had any desire to maintain any semblance of kayfabe. I see that as a missed opportunity for Flair as the *worker* (not wrestler, but worker) I associate most with the cable TV national expansion era. I'd call it more of a missed opportunity than an actual weakness. But I do think if he had pioneered that type of change in thought, it would have been pretty cool and would have helped his case as the #1 guy a ton.