HTM slams Flair on his website

[Guest wrestlingbs]

HTM? HTM...

 

Is he the bitter, over-the-hill ex-WWF wrestler who bashes household names and then begs Vince for a job? Or is that the other hundred ex-WWF guys?

 

Seriously, Flair has been able to not only produce at least good matches for decades, but also retained his popularity during that time. People still bring "Wooooo!" signs to WWE events. Me thinks HTM is just jealous about being one of the few retro acts Vince hasn't brought back.

[iliketurtles 0]

People saying Bret Hart is overrated are people just trying to avoid the subject of Ric Flair...there really is no argument. Did Bret use the "Five Moves of Doom" in most of his matches? Of course, but it's not like he repeated them over the entire match. If he went out there and his offense was punch...five moves...punches...stomps...five moves....etc., then you've got a point.

 

But as godthedog pointed out, that's just the LEAST of dozens of matches of how Bret could actually, you know, work.

 

Edit: Now, am I saying I don't like Flair. Not at all. It's just that Flair's one of those wrestlers that gets bashed on too much, but doesn't get bashed enough....which probably makes no sense at all but that's how I look at it.

Edited January 20, 2004 by HartFan86

[Dandy 0]

It is impossible to say that any one wrestler is the greatest of all-time, and even harder for there to be a consensus opinion that is true. You are going to have your fans of different wrestling styles, and what they consider the criteria to be.

 

However, much of what the Flair legacy was built around was his character, psychology, and emotion in his matches that came through with the story that unfolded in the ring.

 

Flair's character was gold. The way that he represented himself was just classic. He set up good storylines and gave tremendous promos. He was classy and high-rolling, but he also cheated like a bastard and let everyone know about it. He was what you thought of as a World Champion.

 

The only problem I ever saw with his psychology was when he applied the figure four, it was to the wrong leg. Now anyone that has been in a figure four that was applied properly knows that it hurts both legs, but essentially, the bent leg is used as a bar on the knee of the straight leg. Flair usually did it to the wrong leg, and I believe that it was due to him working on one leg and segueing directly into the figure four.

 

Someone already stated in this thread how Flair had tremendous stamina and could fill up an entire match. That is extremely important. Even though he had trademark spots, not all of Flair's matches were the same. Just about every wrestler has trademark spots, and if they use a certain finisher and a certain gameplan to work toward that finisher, then yes the matches may look similar in certain spots. Flair has been wrestling for more than 20 years, so I'd say it's safe that people are used to his trademark spots and they think that's all he does.

 

In summation, Flair might not be the best technical wrestler in the history of wrestling, but he was definitely a tremendous wrestler. He made great transitions, had good psychology, excellent workrate, and made you get into his matches. He is "The Man."

[KTID 0]

I had none of the "emotional investment" in Ric Flair's matches, and so can look back on them and judge them for how good they were as matches, and they *weren't very good at all*. If you weren't so emotionally into a Flair match, you too would see that they're all the same match, and not a very good match at that.

[Dandy 0]

I respect your opinion, but I simply disagree. I can watch Flair's matches with the mute button on, and I'm still intrigued by the near falls, transitions, and the way that he made everything mean something.

[Guest JMA]

Anyone notice Flair calling Orton "the greatest IC champion of all time" tonight?

[Dandy 0]

Yep, and it didn't even register to me about the significance until you just posted that. If it was a jab at Honky, it was clever and still done in a way that he could say he wasn't taking a jab at him.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

I didn't even notice the jab. Beautiful.

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

Honky's absolutely spot on with this one.

You bash Flair, yet you quote Bret Hart. I like Bret Hart too but he's even more predictable with his FIVE MOVES OF DOOM and wrestles the same match all the time unless his opponent sucks that bad.

okay, THIS is sheer stupidity. i assume you've seen the following matches:

 

bret v. bulldog, summerslam 92

bret v. mr perfect, KOR 93

bret v. owen, summerslam 94

bret v. diesel, survivor series 95

bret v. austin, WM 13

 

take in that list for a second.

 

...

 

good. hopefully, you've reached the conclusion that these matches essentially ARE NOTHING ALIKE. there is quite a bit more variety in bret's body of work than there is in flair's.

5 matches out of the thousands he's wrestled is like saying he wrestled 99.9999% of his matches the same, which is pretty much the same as Flair.

[Guest Dynamite Kido]

I'll make my point and make it simple:

 

Ric Flair had more ****+ matches with Steamboat, than HTM had in his career against everyone.

[Guest Loss]

To Honky's credit, he was a big draw during the time he was IC champ. The fact that after he lost the belt, his usefulness was over does not take away from the fact that he had a 14-month run where he drew and was a hot heel, which is about 14 months more than most wrestlers.

 

I love Flair; he's my favorite wrestler ever. I'd hardly call him the best, but he is my favorite. Flair did not *suck* and he was repetitive at times, and I'm not justifying that, but as was previously mentioned, the fact that he brought so much to his matches, including stooging and bumping and selling and his stamina, makes him an all-time great.

 

I think Flair sold well for everyone but himself at times. I think Flair tended to wrestle more talented guys in the same way he wrestled the Lugers and Koloffs, which often limited what his opponents could do. But to say Flair was *bad* is ridiculous, although the growing sentiment seems to be leading in that direction for some reason.

[Guest Dynamite Kido]

Plus I really don't get it with HTM. He was a huge draw over 14 months.......that's it, nothing more. He drew consistant crowds for 14 months, try doing it for years then I'll give you credibility.

[godthedog 0]

Honky's absolutely spot on with this one.

You bash Flair, yet you quote Bret Hart. I like Bret Hart too but he's even more predictable with his FIVE MOVES OF DOOM and wrestles the same match all the time unless his opponent sucks that bad.

okay, THIS is sheer stupidity. i assume you've seen the following matches:

 

bret v. bulldog, summerslam 92

bret v. mr perfect, KOR 93

bret v. owen, summerslam 94

bret v. diesel, survivor series 95

bret v. austin, WM 13

 

take in that list for a second.

 

...

 

good. hopefully, you've reached the conclusion that these matches essentially ARE NOTHING ALIKE. there is quite a bit more variety in bret's body of work than there is in flair's.

5 matches out of the thousands he's wrestled is like saying he wrestled 99.9999% of his matches the same, which is pretty much the same as Flair.

<sigh>

 

okay, you apparently still don't get it, so i'll list some more.

 

hart foundation v. austin/LOD/shamrock/goldust, canadian stampede

bret v. austin, SurSer 96

bret v. flair (iron man), boston garden house show

bret v. owen, WM 10

bret v. bulldog, IYH 95

bret v. piper, WM 8

hell, even bret v. hbk, WM 12

or bret v. yokozuna, WM 10

 

the point isn't even that all these were spectacular matches, the point is they were DIFFERENT. bret worked each of these matches DIFFERENTLY. hence, my point that his body of work is varied.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Talented guy who reminds me of Hugh Hefner > Not so talented and annoying Elvis impersonator

[Guest Mad the Swine]

It wasn't a jab at Honky. Flair has admitted he knows very little about computers, much less the internet community.

 

Honky's main problem is that when Flair was booking, he didn't want to push him back in 1994. Hogan was the one who provided the push, as he did for almost every ex-WWF guy that came in during that time.

[Guest The Midnight Rocking Warrior]

I think Htm was a great I-c champ, and although I was a tad dissapointed with some of the Flair matches, I still think he's one of the best ever. Although I do think Bret Hart had better matches.

[nl5xsk1 0]

Bret Hart gave the belt some importance.

Not at the level of HTM.

 

When you're at the point that an arena would take the popcorn vendor as champion just to take the belt away from the guy-when it's not even the major belt- you have gold.

 

Like, for instance, no one cares right now about the IC champ, so no one will care when he finally loses it.

 

When you can get people to care that much about who the IC champ is, you've done your job.

The problem with that argument is that it wasn't HTM that made the fans feel that way, it was the way that he was booked. It could have been virtually ANY heel (Rude, Piper, Reed, etc) and if the bookers booked him to be a cowardly heel that didn't deserve the belt, the fans would have been absolutely rabid to see his lose the belt as well. It's not like it was HTM in particular, it was the way that the booking was done.

[evilhomer 0]

The only problem I ever saw with his psychology was when he applied the figure four, it was to the wrong leg. Now anyone that has been in a figure four that was applied properly knows that it hurts both legs, but essentially, the bent leg is used as a bar on the knee of the straight leg. Flair usually did it to the wrong leg, and I believe that it was due to him working on one leg and segueing directly into the figure four.

To defend this, you see the Figure Four was so painful on the straight leg that he didn't need to wear it down, the move itself accomplished this. By working on the other leg, he would have an opponent who was essentially helpless because once the FF was applied, he'd have both his legs taken out. It's true that if he worked the straight leg he may get a faster submission, but this was a contingency plan in case the opponent somehow was able to withstand the pain.

 

In summation, Flair might not be the best technical wrestler in the history of wrestling, but he was definitely a tremendous wrestler.  He made great transitions, had good psychology, excellent workrate, and made you get into his matches.  He is "The Man."

You damn right. I can't think of anyone who could consistently put on entertaining matches with any opponent. The bottom line for me is how much I was entertained, Flair rarely failed to accomplish it.

[Guest Dynamite Kido]

I fully admit that Flair does have some technical shortcomings in the ring. But Flair's money was made off the fact that he knew how to work, and could properly help build the match through his charisma and his interviews.

[Guest Frank_Nabbit]

Bret Hart gave the belt some importance.

Not at the level of HTM.

 

When you're at the point that an arena would take the popcorn vendor as champion just to take the belt away from the guy-when it's not even the major belt- you have gold.

 

Like, for instance, no one cares right now about the IC champ, so no one will care when he finally loses it.

 

When you can get people to care that much about who the IC champ is, you've done your job.

The problem with that argument is that it wasn't HTM that made the fans feel that way, it was the way that he was booked. It could have been virtually ANY heel (Rude, Piper, Reed, etc) and if the bookers booked him to be a cowardly heel that didn't deserve the belt, the fans would have been absolutely rabid to see his lose the belt as well. It's not like it was HTM in particular, it was the way that the booking was done.

Then why didn't Xtian and other cowardly heels Main Event house shows for weeks or months at a time like Honky did.

 

The angle was executed to perfection. Honky was the man. The bookers got it right.

 

That's like when people argue that any one with Hogan's size and charisma could've set wrestling on fire. There was only one man. That's why we only have pretenders (Luger,Warrior) and one bonafide legend (Hogan)

[nl5xsk1 0]

Then why didn't Xtian and other cowardly heels Main Event house shows for weeks or months at a time like Honky did.

 

The angle was executed to perfection.  Honky was the man.  The bookers got it right. 

 

That's like when people argue that any one with Hogan's size and charisma could've set wrestling on fire.  There was only one man. That's why we only have pretenders (Luger,Warrior) and one bonafide legend (Hogan)

How long did Christian hold the title? Certainly not the 14 months that HTM did. How many defenses did he really have were it looked like he was going to lose it only to win either by cheating or reatain by countout or DQ? Some, but not nearly the number that HTM did. If they gave Christian the reign that they gave HTM, they could have had him Main Eventing house shows with ease.

 

Plus, it's comparing apples to oranges when you compare the 80s to today. I never said that they could completely re-enact this angle today (well, technically I did say it, but edited my post immediately b.c I wasn't sure I could defend that argument). My point was, and still is, that they could have taken virtually any heel and given them that longass title reign. The bookers did a great job, and HTM was in the right place at the right time. Did HTM suck? No, not at all. But I can't say that he is the only person that could have made that angle work.

Edited January 21, 2004 by nl5xsk1

[deancoles 0]

I doubt Honky would have had such a good reign if he had been on tv every week,in the 80s they were in town once a month at the most and the fans didn't know that he did the same finishes in all the other towns.I feel Danny Davis could have done a similar thing with the belt in early 1987 but Savage was a heel at the time.

[Guest JMA]

I doubt Honky would have had such a good reign if he had been on tv every week,in the 80s they were in town once a month at the most and the fans didn't know that he did the same finishes in all the other towns.I feel Danny Davis could have done a similar thing with the belt in early 1987 but Savage was a heel at the time.

I SO would've marked out for a Danny Davis IC title run. He might have even had more heat than Honky did.

 

Looks like this story is already circulating on the net.

[deancoles 0]

I doubt Honky would have had such a good reign if he had been on tv every week,in the 80s they were in town once a month at the most and the fans didn't know that he did the same finishes in all the other towns.I feel Danny Davis could have done a similar thing with the belt in early 1987 but Savage was a heel at the time.

I SO would've marked out for a Danny Davis IC title run. He might have even had more heat than Honky did.

 

I love the 6 man tag match at wrestlemania 3,when Davey Boy tombstones Davis you can see his head bounce off the mat.

[Guest BionicRedneck]

Is/was Flair overrated? Sure. From a pure in-ring standpoint he is. From an all-round standpoint, however, he is probably one of the top 3 greatest wrestlers ever. Even if you look at Flair purely from an in-ring standpoint, in his prime, he was still good. Calling him "horseshit" or saying he "sucked" (as Bret did) is simply wrong. It's wrong. He didn't suck. Wrestlers who suck don't have a series of good-great matches. They might get lucky once or twice, but sucky wrestlers don't have lots of good-great matches, which Flair did.

 

His work against Steamboat, Funk, Race, Tsuruta, Windham etc. is some pretty god damn good stuff. When added to his ring work his promos, interviews, acting and ability to work the crowd make Flair one of the greatest.

 

In other words, Honky Tonk Man is a fucking moron.

[Guest JMA]

In other words, Honky Tonk Man is a fucking moron.

Amen.

[DCMaximo 0]

The problem I think a lot of people have with Flair is that he's been so hyped up for so long. Someone like me, who is only 21 and living in England, has never had the chance to see Flair's matches against Steamboat/ Funk etc. By the time I bought the Flair DVD, I was so psyched to see Flair-Steamboat, it could only have been a let down. However, next time I watched them my expectations were lower, and I found myself really enjoying the DVD. This to me is the most likely reason for this Flair backlash