Bret Hart responds to Ric Flair's comments

[Enigma 0]

So, how long until The Honky Tonk Man jumps on this and starts talking shit about both Flair and Hart?

[Guest Loss]

Harley race isa better worker than Flair.

This is probably true.

 

Flair does the same thing every match.

 

He does many of the same things yes. In all fairness though, name me a single wrestler, ever, who *isn't* repetitive, at least in the US.

 

Flairs moves are low inpact even by 80s standards.

 

Flair's strength was never his moveset. It was his timing, his bumping, and his selling.

 

Ricky the Dragon Steamboat is in a other league compared to Flair. Steamboat deserved a longer title reign. (How he had the nerve to say he was better than Steamboat i will never understand.)

 

"Ricky Steamboat isn't the best because he never worked heel." -- Flair's explanation

 

Steamboat was a great worker and I would have loved to see him have a longer run with the belt, but he was seen as too much of a family man and the crowds were shitting on him. Flair/Steamboat was great, but it didn't draw.

 

Flair made all his babyface opponents look stupid.

 

In order to say this, you need to see every Flair match against every babyface. What did he do to make them look stupid? Pick any match on the DVD and walk through it with an explanation, sequence by sequence.

 

The fans seemed to love Flair a lot even as a heel becuase he acted the clown.

 

How? Again, pick any match on the DVD and walk through it with an explanation, sequence by sequence.

 

Flair chatted crap about Dusty Rhodes being a good wrestler. (This is the same guy who bashes Foley? Even at his unfittest Foley was in better shape than that man titted whale, if you wheeel)

 

Flair was kayfabing because it's a DVD. What do you expect him to do -- badmouth an opponent who had an entire chapter dedicated to him? But yeah, the Dusty praise threw me off too, but the point of the DVD was to sell copies, not be historically accurate.

 

Barry Windham is a other wreslter far better than Flair.

 

Agreed, but Barry didn't have his heart in wrestling consistently, which is the only reason he never surpassed him for good.

 

Flair made Sting look crap.

 

This is laughable. Watch the Clash I match in entirety.

 

I am not a insider, but wasnt what Flair doing exposing the business by 1980s standards. I mean he did the same contrived match after match, he was worse than Hogan in this regard.

 

Hardly.

 

Flair would have his legs worked on yet he would still flop about like a rag doll. (He is calling Foley a stunt man? At least Foleys stunts where less fake looking than his.)

 

This is a valid criticism. However, comparing him to Foley is ridiculous. The point of wrestling is for everything to look painful without being painful at all. Wrestling is fake. Foley never seemed to fully understand that.

 

I could go on, and on. I just personally thing Flair is overhyped.

 

He probably is, to a certain extent, but that doesn't mean he should be totally written off. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

[benoit4hor 0]

When did Bret make those comments?

 

Do you think Eugene(yeah I know Eugene does everyones spots) doing Flairs spots, Flair saying Eugene stole all my stuff, and Flair attempting the full turnbuckle flip(that he botched) and making The Hurricane tap to the figure-four have anything to do with Bret's comments?

[Guest Loss]

No, Bret made those comments because he read Flair's book. It was posted yesterday afternoon prior to RAW.

[Guest Loss]

Because it was mentioned earlier, from the Observer site:

 

--Regarding the Bret Hart response to Ric Flair, which seems to be the big topic of today here, Ric Flair was not on the plane crash with Bobby Shane. Bret Hart most likely mixed up two 70s famous plane crashes. The Florida crash, where Shane died, had Gary Hart, Buddy Colt and Dennis McCord (later famous as Austin Idol). The Carolinas crash had Flair, Johnny Valentine, Bob Bruggers, David Crockett and Tim Woods. Hart has already wanted it known he recognizes the mistake and wants to set the record straight.

[Guest brethart]

Harley race isa better worker than Flair.

This is probably true.

 

Flair does the same thing every match.

 

He does many of the same things yes. In all fairness though, name me a single wrestler, ever, who *isn't* repetitive, at least in the US.

 

Flairs moves are low inpact even by 80s standards.

 

Flair's strength was never his moveset. It was his timing, his bumping, and his selling.

 

Ricky the Dragon Steamboat is in a other league compared to Flair. Steamboat deserved a longer title reign. (How he had the nerve to say he was better than Steamboat i will never understand.)

 

"Ricky Steamboat isn't the best because he never worked heel." -- Flair's explanation

 

Steamboat was a great worker and I would have loved to see him have a longer run with the belt, but he was seen as too much of a family man and the crowds were shitting on him. Flair/Steamboat was great, but it didn't draw.

 

Flair made all his babyface opponents look stupid.

 

In order to say this, you need to see every Flair match against every babyface. What did he do to make them look stupid? Pick any match on the DVD and walk through it with an explanation, sequence by sequence.

 

The fans seemed to love Flair a lot even as a heel becuase he acted the clown.

 

How? Again, pick any match on the DVD and walk through it with an explanation, sequence by sequence.

 

Flair chatted crap about Dusty Rhodes being a good wrestler. (This is the same guy who bashes Foley? Even at his unfittest Foley was in better shape than that man titted whale, if you wheeel)

 

Flair was kayfabing because it's a DVD. What do you expect him to do -- badmouth an opponent who had an entire chapter dedicated to him? But yeah, the Dusty praise threw me off too, but the point of the DVD was to sell copies, not be historically accurate.

 

Barry Windham is a other wreslter far better than Flair.

 

Agreed, but Barry didn't have his heart in wrestling consistently, which is the only reason he never surpassed him for good.

 

Flair made Sting look crap.

 

This is laughable. Watch the Clash I match in entirety.

 

I am not a insider, but wasnt what Flair doing exposing the business by 1980s standards. I mean he did the same contrived match after match, he was worse than Hogan in this regard.

 

Hardly.

 

Flair would have his legs worked on yet he would still flop about like a rag doll. (He is calling Foley a stunt man? At least Foleys stunts where less fake looking than his.)

 

This is a valid criticism. However, comparing him to Foley is ridiculous. The point of wrestling is for everything to look painful without being painful at all. Wrestling is fake. Foley never seemed to fully understand that.

 

I could go on, and on. I just personally thing Flair is overhyped.

 

He probably is, to a certain extent, but that doesn't mean he should be totally written off. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Thanks for the decent reply. This is what i am looking for debate. I got nothing to add, except that i think Flairs timing and selling was funny. Well it seems like it to me anyway. (That means i dont consider that one of his strenghs. How can you make someone look good by bumping like a rag doll if your bumping looks stupid?)

 

Perhaps i am wrong about the Sting thing, but the Sting match i saw on the Ric Flair DVD made him look stupid. (I rember not being able to believe Flair beat Vader as a kid though. Bare in mind i havent seen much early 90s wcw more than once.)

[Guest BDC]

How can you make someone look good by bumping like a rag doll if your bumping looks stupid?)

 

By trying too hard. Watch someone oversell the Stunner in the late 90's.

 

To be hoenst, Flair fit in much the way that the heel Rock did. Hot on the stick, good in the ring and could find a way to beat about anyone. Trick is, Flair didn't need as much outside help.

[Guest brethart]

Got to admit i love Flairs promos. Thats one thing i like about him.

[Guest MikeSC]

And, uh, I wouldn't praise Foley's "handing people careers" while criticizing Flair, since Flair did it for more people than anybody else.

You know, not to open up a huge can of worms, but exactly how many careers did Flair make? Lex Luger? Barry Windham? Paul Roma?

 

I'm not being sarcastic or rhetorical. I want to see the mile-long list of careers that Flair had a direct hand in making. Just for the sake of reference.

He made Sting. He flat-out made the man.

He made Lex Luger.

He made Barry Windham.

Heck, he made Ricky Steamboat in the 70's.

He made Piper.

He made Morton look like a world beater.

He made Nikita Koloff look like a passable worker.

He TOTALLY put over the Giant.

He made Ted DiBiase.

He made the entire Von Erich clan.

He made Magnum T.A

Hell, he made Terry Funk into a contender YEARS after people wrote him off.

 

That's more than anybody else can begin to lay claims to.

Yeah Flair was such a amazing draw. Thats why the NWA early WCW was kicking BUTT in the ratings war. That is why Vince kept him around for years after he came to the WWF. OPPS, my mistake. I see nothing but empty arena when Flair pefroms

Do you REALLY want to attack Flair's drawing power, considering how poorly Bret drew as WWF Champ and as WCW Champ?

 

I could be cruel and mention that his departure was the biggest reason for the WWF's resurgence.

Flair overstayed his welcome when the focus should've been on Sting. Also he is a lying son of a bitch. Rember the last Nitro? Flair goes on about how great WCW is. Then on his DVD he bashes WCW. I cant take anyone who acts like that at there word.

He didn't praise the company. He praised the wrestlers. Flair and WCW had not been friendly for many years --- and if Bret was treated as shabbily as Flair was, he would have been less pleasant than that.

Also i am pissed off, and bitter Funk submitted to one figgure four leg lock. I mean the move no one tapped too, and Funk submitted.

Funk was a non-entity on the nat'l stage until Flair made him a star all over again. In 1988-89, NOBODY in America thought about Terry Funk as a ME-level worker in the States.

 

Bret Hart made Razor Ramon --- but you can argue that he did more to hold back Shawn Michaels than anybody else.

 

And who in the world would rate the ME of Canadian Stampede as a ***** affair? A hot crowd does not mean a match is good.

-=Mike

[Promoter 0]

Just to add to this conversation. I think it can't be argued that Savage, Hart, and HBK are much more of a chameleon than Ric Flair. These guys can pull off different type of matches, while I really don't see Ric Flair doing the same thing. It could be an era thing, but the fact remains those three guys could do different style of matches. Bret Hart has done ironman matches, steel cage matches, I quit matches, and HBK who Flair claims is greater than Hart was even better at making an impact in new style of matches like the ladder and cell matches. This tend to make me think Hart is not just ripping on Flair about being a "routine man" for the sake of it. BTW, HBK is said to be just as Randy Savage in wanting to detail all his matches without improvisation, yet Flair calls him great. What's the difference? Savage was one of the original high flyers in the history of the wwe. As for putting people over I can't really have too much of a say in that because I never really got access to the nwa in Toronto. For what it's worth Flair was a draw here getting face pops before Vince bought off Tunney and took over this region. I guess Toronto has always been a different city even way back then. I will say that in all of these guys involved in this debate Savage was the least demanding. I mean he was in matches with Steamboat and became wwe champ in 1988 and all of a sudden after that big break up with Hogan it seems he got demoted for no good reason. Savage was put against stiffs like Duggan and Dusty Rhodes(charisma yes, but ring skills no in 1990) for crying out loud.

[Guest MikeSC]

Just to add to this conversation. I think it can't be argued that Savage, Hart, and HBK are much more of a chameleon than Ric Flair. These guys can pull of different type of matches, while I really don't see Ric Flair doing the same thing. It could be an era thing, but the fact remains those three guys could do different style of matches. Bret Hart has done ironman matches, steel cage matches, I quit matches, and HBK who Flair claims is greater than Hart was even better at making an impact in new style of matches like the ladder and cell matches. This tend to make me think Hart is not just ripping on Flair about being a "routine man" for the sake of it. BTW, HBK is said to be just as Randy Savage in wanting to detail all his matches without improvisation, yet Flair calls him great. What's the difference? Savage was one of the original high flyers in the history of the wwe.

I suppose Shawn Michaels didn't go to the details Savage did with planning it out --- and I imagine Shawn had SOME ability to call it on the fly.

 

Honestly, Savage's work TANKED after about 1992. His WCW work was, to be generous, uninspired and when Flair didn't carry him, he looked like crap.

 

It's odd that people think Savage and Hart are better than Flair, yet the ONLY guy they managed to look good in the ring with in WCW WAS Flair.

-=Mike

[Promoter 0]

Honestly, Savage's work TANKED after about 1992. His WCW work was, to be generous, uninspired and when Flair didn't carry him, he looked like crap.

 

It's odd that people think Savage and Hart are better than Flair, yet the ONLY guy they managed to look good in the ring with in WCW WAS Flair.

-=Mike

I think A LOT of the main guys from the 80's work started to tank from 1990-1991 and on. I watch WM 8 and all I get is the feeling that the 80's stars were in a twilight zone. Piper was not the same Piper of the mid 80's against Bret Hart. Santana was not the same Santana against HBK. Hogan had been declining and it showed with his match with Sid. I even think that Savage/Flair match is over-rated. Not saying it wasn't a good match, but really look at that match and compare it to their work in 1987-1989. It was clear the new crop was coming up.

I also think Savage was the only guy who actually looked decent workrate wise during that whole nwo era in wcw in the "icons". Savage and DDP was good.

 

As for Bret Hart in wcw, they completely screwed up one of the hottest babyfaces ever at the time. Plain and simple. Bischoff used him wrong and didn't capitalize on having the real wwe champion. Imagine Vince getting that? You saw how he handled it with Ric Flair in 1991.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think A LOT of the main guys from the 80's work started to tank from 1990-1991 and on. I watch WM 8 and all I get is the feeling that the 80's stars were in a twilight zone. Piper was not the same Piper of the mid 80's against Bret Hart. Santana was not the same Santana against HBK. Hogan had been declining and it showed with his match with Sid. I even think that Savage/Flair match is over-rated. Not saying it wasn't a good match, but really look at that match and compare it to their work in 1987-1989. It was clear the new crop was coming up.

I also think Savage was the only guy who actually looked decent workrate wise during that whole nwo era in wcw in the "icons". Savage and DDP was good.

 

As for Bret Hart in wcw, they completely screwed up one of the hottest babyfaces ever at the time. Plain and simple. Bischoff used him wrong and didn't capitalize on having the real wwe champion. Imagine Vince getting that? You saw how he handled it with Ric Flair in 1991.

Bret didn't exactly go out of his way to do much, either. His ring work was, outside of the Flair match --- and the Benoit match --- bland, at best. The epitome of repetition.

 

Vince had the gift of Flair dragging guys like Santana and Von Erich to shockingly good matches. WCW had Hart doing a bunch of nothing.

-=Mike

[cabbageboy 0]

There was something that Bret failed to mention during his trashing of Flair in late 1992 when Bret first won the title from him. Flair was working then with a middle ear problem that was screwing up his equilibrium (in fact Flair wasn't at the first TV taping I ever went to for this reason). This might account for the odd bumps and mistimed stuff Flair was doing.

 

Bret also doesn't seem to realize that Flair does his silly spots like falling on his face and flipping in the corner because those spots are over with the crowd. I'd somehow feel cheated if I didn't get those spots in a Flair match.

 

Bret himself is guilty of the same repetition he accuses Flair of. Truthfully, everyone repeats spots.

[Guest Staravenger]

Vince had the gift of Flair dragging guys like Santana and Von Erich to shockingly good matches. WCW had Hart doing a bunch of nothing.

-=Mike

When exactly did Tito Santana ever suck? Von Erich I can understand but Santana? (gets a torch and pitchfork)

[Hektik 0]

Do you REALLY want to attack Flair's drawing power, considering how poorly Bret drew as WWF Champ and as WCW Champ?

 

I could be cruel and mention that his departure was the biggest reason for the WWF's resurgence.

You have to state what you mean when you say draw. When Ric Flair says draw he means how many arenas did you sell out, not how high your TV ratings or PPV buyrates were.

 

Bret didn't exactly go out of his way to do much, either. His ring work was, outside of the Flair match --- and the Benoit match --- bland, at best. The epitome of repetition.

 

Vince had the gift of Flair dragging guys like Santana and Von Erich to shockingly good matches. WCW had Hart doing a bunch of nothing.

You bring up Bret's WCW run when he was already well out of his prime. I could be cruel and just flat out say Flair has not had a good match since 1993 and has since been living on his name and spots.

 

In his prime, Flair's best quality was being able to carry slugs to good matches. He was able to carry green/bad workers like Sting and Lex Luger to good matches. In many ways it launched their career. The big problem with Flair was that he sometimes had problems calling a match with good workers. Ric Flair tried to work Bret Hart the same way he would Luger or Sting and you just don't do that. That is why the Flair/Hart series from 92 is so dissapointing.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

And why does he dance when he puts on the Figure Four?

Because he's Ric Flair. Plus it pops the crowd.

 

Oh, and nice to see an impartial view from the guy with "brethart" as his username.

Undertaker + Owen Hart = UndertakerHart

 

Flair and Bret sound like two grumpy old men.

[Guest JMA]

I could be cruel and mention that his departure was the biggest reason for the WWF's resurgence.

I don't think that's entirely accurate. While the Montreal incident did start the whole "evil boss" gimmick in the WWF (something WCW had started doing MONTHS before), it was a revamping of how the WWF was presented; the different style of wrestling, the risque storyline, T & A, and most importantly, Stone Cold Steve Austin, who made the "Attitude" era what it was.

 

It was Bret Hart who helped plant the seeds of this new era with his heel turn and anti-US faction -- the Hart Foundation. Steve Austin in particular benefited from this angle, and indeed, his entire feud with Bret.

[Guest MikeSC]

Vince had the gift of Flair dragging guys like Santana and Von Erich to shockingly good matches. WCW had Hart doing a bunch of nothing.

        -=Mike

When exactly did Tito Santana ever suck? Von Erich I can understand but Santana? (gets a torch and pitchfork)

Tito was guaranteed decent match until about 1990. When he got that El Matador gimmick, his work just died a grisly death. Before that, he and Koko were my favorite JTTS.

You have to state what you mean when you say draw. When Ric Flair says draw he means how many arenas did you sell out, not how high your TV ratings or PPV buyrates were.

Bret didn't draw great crowds, for the most part. In America, he definitely didn't. Ric kept Crockett afloat for years.

You bring up Bret's WCW run when he was already well out of his prime. I could be cruel and just flat out say Flair has not had a good match since 1993 and has since been living on his name and spots.

And you'd be correct. Flair had a much longer career of good matches than Bret did, though. Hart was a very solid singles worker for, roughly, 10 years.

In his prime, Flair's best quality was being able to carry slugs to good matches. He was able to carry green/bad workers like Sting and Lex Luger to good matches. In many ways it launched their career. The big problem with Flair was that he sometimes had problems calling a match with good workers. Ric Flair tried to work Bret Hart the same way he would Luger or Sting and you just don't do that. That is why the Flair/Hart series from 92 is so dissapointing.

And Bret has shown a willingness to not really cooperate with a guy (notice how little he did to make Shawn look good at WM12, after Shawn bent over backwards to make him look good while jobbing to him CONSTANTLY in 1992?), so I have little doubt that some of the problems were Bret's fault.

-=Mike

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

EDIT: Nevermind.

 

I'd like to see Flair's answer to this.

[Guest Choken One]

It's odd that people think Savage and Hart are better than Flair, yet the ONLY guy they managed to look good in the ring with in WCW WAS Flair.

-=Mike

I recall Bret having good matches with Benoit and Booker and Savage had a couple good matches with DDP as well.

 

 

Just Like Flair at the same time period, They were beyond their peak and primes that they had nothing.

 

Flair hadn't done anything worthwhile since Carrying Hogan to a **** match in 1994...

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Replying to Losses big "fair and balanced" post (the "" are not for sarcasm... ok, maybe like 10% is )

 

On the "Hogan and Flair coulda screwed me" part (as well as the "why doesn't Nash ever get blamed?"). Bret said he heard that both guys were responsible for his WCW failure. He never said they were responsible, but he heard they were.

 

Now, whodya think coulda been feeding him that info ??

[godthedog 0]

And Bret has shown a willingness to not really cooperate with a guy (notice how little he did to make Shawn look good at WM12, after Shawn bent over backwards to make him look good while jobbing to him CONSTANTLY in 1992?), so I have little doubt that some of the problems were Bret's fault.

by extension, bret made shawn look GREAT at the 92 survivor series. shawn was nowhere near main event level at the time (shawn himself will admit this, and is on record as saying he didn't really make his name as a major contender until the ladder match), but bret sold like hell for him and made him look like a very serious threat to the title. bret didn't have to do that, seeing as how shawn was seen strictly as IC material at that point.

 

and i can't think of any specific examples of bret making shawn look bad in the iron man match.

[Slickster 0]

Of course he has every right, but he made so many off the wall comments in that, and so many comments about situations that he obviously knows nothing about that he comes off looking foolish. Don't accuse someone of being bitter when you sound just as bitter, if not more, and don't accuse someone of being repetative in their style when you were just as repetative for your entire career.

THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS.

[DangerousDamon 0]

He made Ted DiBiase.

How'd Flair make DiBiase?

 

Just curious.

[Guest Choken One]

edt

[SuperJerk 0]

If and when Bret's book comes out, it'll rule.

 

I really hope Shawn Michaels writes a book, too.

 

(Yeah, I know what your thinking, but since Shawn admitted knowing about the Montreal ahead of time, I'm willing to give the guy a little more credit when it comes to telling the truth.)

[UZI Suicide 0]

Yeah, and it took him how long? I wouldn't believe one word that came out of that man's mouth.

[Guest GreatOne]

Hey Bret, do the Cheney. Who's the one on RAW again? Who's "glorious" career went out with a whimpering whiny tirade on the little-missed Thunder?

 

I don't think Mr. Five Moves Of Doom has any right to be talking about somebody else having the same spots in a match.

 

So Foley rips on Flair in his book, yet when Flair comes back--it's a sin? Sounds to me like the Bush-haters vs Bush here. Then again Bret totally dissolved Russo of any responsibility of the whole thing with Owen and Foley loves Russo and Flair hates him, hell Stevie Wonder could see that.

 

Montreal actually worked to his advantage and he was so busy whining he couldn't see it. If anyone was killed coming out of it it was Michaels--who got the Jericho treatment throughout nearly his entire run.

 

I guess Mach was right, he IS a mark for his own character. HHH ain't got SHIT on him.

[Guest wildpegasus]

I don't think Mr. Five Moves Of Doom has any right to be talking about somebody else having the same spots in a match.

Everybody does the same base moves in a match. Everyone.

 

The difference between Flair and Bret is this

 

Flair wrestled almost the same exact way against everyone no matter who they were. It was a pattern that was fool proof in having a good match. THe only problem was he smothered some opponents by not letting them bring possable good elements to a match. He worked hard in the ring as well.

 

Bret used the same moves a lot of the time just like everyone else but the key was he didn't always wrestle the same match. Bret was very smart in the ring and knew what to do and when to do it. He could construct stories in matches, play off of previous matches, build a bout and have lots of subtle stuff in a match. Bret's matches hold up so well not just because he had a great moveset, sold well or executed his manuevers excellently but because there are just so many little things Bret did in his stuff that make people remember them so fondly. I could go on forever just about that alone. That is versatility and that is great physology which is why 20 years from now people will still be drooling over Bret's matches.