Bret Hart responds to Ric Flair's comments

[Guest Anticrombie]

Be Honest Shanghai, are you more inclined to beleive Landel because of your claim that he knows more then we do, or because you:

 

A) Don't like Bret, and don't mind taking shots when and where you can

 

or

 

B)Like Flair, and you're pissed that damn HBK hater criticized him (yeah I've read your "I Love HBK" posts in the past)

 

Using this logic Bret knows more then we do, and Flair is in fact an old windbag, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Using this logic, Triple H and HBK are the greatest thing the world of wrestling has ever created because Flair knows more then we do.

 

Using this logic...uhh well you know where I'm going with this.

[geniusMoment 0]

Everyone on this board is more qualified to talk about wrestling than Buddy fuckin' Landel. He said Flair was better because when he arrived at the airport you knew the champ was in town. That is complete crap. I guess Steve Austin wearing jeans and t shirts should not have been champ. Uh oh, one time I saw Rocky wearing wind pants and an athletic shirt, I was so disgusted he was not dressed like the champ I have never enjoyed another match again. Bret was a robot? If you could ever find a seat? I understand Flair did draw some good houses but I could have found about 1000 seats for Flair/Steamboat or Flair/Funk in NY.

[Guest MikeSC]

Exactly.  I understand and recognize many of his points, but he seems stubbornly biased in his stance towards Flair.  He made everyone he ever wrestled, and did so in immaculate fashion.

If that is how it came across, I apologize. It is not the case. He didn't make Dusty Rhodes. He didn't make the Road Warriors.

 

However, the guys I give him credit for making he DID make. Again, people keep mistaking his giving Funk a career from 1989-on as saying Funk was nothing before Flair. That is not the case. However, let's say I say that Bob Backlund's brief renaissance in the WWF was LARGELY due to Bret Hart --- would ANYBODY actually disagree with that statement?

 

That's how Flair/Funk was. Funk went from "Isn't he retired?" to top heel in one of the best series of matches the NWA had seen.

Flair helped many out in the 80's, but again, that is something only hardcore fans know about.  I don' deny it happening, but it certainly didn't shake the wrestling landscape.  Bret's work helped develop actual concrete stars who carried over for years.  I just don't see any long term benefits of Flair "making" ted Dibiase.

Hart has that benefit because most of the Hart supporters weren't AROUND when Flair made people stars. They see Piper and assume that he was always big. Somebody had to put him there. Somebody put Sting up on that list. Somebody did it for a lot of guys.

 

And that somebody happened to be Ric Flair.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Besides Montreal, when has Hart not wanted to put someone over? He even wanted Benoit to win the Owen tribute match.

Conky, rewatch WM12. Bret couldn't have made it MORE obvious he had no desire, whatsoever, to make Shawn look good in the ring.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

So basically you're making excuses for not backing up why Flair drags these matches down or why they don't compare to anything Bret did.

Are you a idiot? I've just explaned what Flair does in every single match countless times.

 

Ok one last time.

 

Flair kills all the drama in his matches, by doing stupid comedy spots. Flip floping over the top rope. Not selling punches properly by floping on his face. His selling in general is awfull. He takes a body slam every match. He gets thrown off the top turn buckle every match. His finisher is really weak, and rarely wins matches. He got himself more over than the babyfaces by being funny.

 

There i made my points so either reply to them, or shut up. Dont clam i am not backing my clams up ok?

Funny --- the crowds didn't seem dead for ANY of his matches. Not even against aged slugs like Junkyard Dog.

 

Meanwhile, Bret Hart could get crickets going against Patriot

-=Mike

[Australian Pride 0]

Meanwhile, Bret Hart could get crickets going against Patriot

-=Mike

I cant fully agree with that. Their match at Ground Zero was a slow starter but they eventually warmed the crowd up and after about the halfway mark they were right into it. You can attribute the lack of crowd heat at the start more to The Patriot being new on the scene, as well as not viewed as a threat to the title. In my opinion Bret pulled the crowd into the match by making Patriot look like someone who could win the title. When Patriot put on the sharpshooter the excitement levels in that place were buzzing.

[reign 0]

They are both great but I think Flair was out of line on many levels...Bret always put on great matches and made many a superstar that went on to be considered the greats of wrestling(Stone Cold,Davey Boy, Owen, Shawn to an extent as well as UT, especially VINCE!!) while setting the scene for the greatest run the WWE has ever sean...without his heel run I don't WWF(E) could've reached those levels...Montreal remade Vince and set up that magnificent run for all of those guys while Bret was F'd over in WCW...I mean if you wanted to compete with Vince why do the things to Bret that they did...the controversy was at fever pitch levels because of that and only a deaf,blind mute(or Vince ala Invasion or NWO) could've wasted such an opportunity.....anybody who disagrees is retarded...just watch SummerSlam 92...no match has come close to levels of that greatness...King of the Ring 93...even SummerSlam 93 was great because of the efforts of Bret with a retired legend(the King) and Lex with Yoko...yeah Flair made Sting and his feud Funk was off the charts but Bret made more of an impact on this sport that most have in the last decade or so...in a shoot match Bret would whip damn near anybody besides maybe Brock or Angle(Owen too)..Flair would have had no chance against him at any point in his career...Bret Hart is the greatest wrestler in the history of the business hands down and Flair is simply afraid that his legacy might be tarnished...remember that being 16 time champ only means that he lost the title more anybody else too...had Bret not only had the misfortunes of Montreal,Owen, WCW politics, Davey's death, family manipulation from Vince and fucking Goldberg kicking him into oblivion but a stroke from all of this bullshit that killed his in ring career...Bret didn't have the continued platform that Flair had to continually renew his positionas the greatest..this article was amazing..Bret may have have been over emotional but anybody who has a brother who has died will relate to his position...and his points on Flair were dead-on...people may say Bret bitches too much but damnit all of you are always interested in what he has to say...I praise everyone on this board who stands with the Hitman because he deserves nothing less....

[Promoter 0]

Maybe the wwe should get Bret back or Bret should consider the farewell speech. Imagine the Flair/Hart face to face heat in a building like Calgary, North Carolina, New York, or Toronto. It would be surreal.

[geniusMoment 0]

Bret would never do that angle, and he shouldn't. Bret should just give a classy farewell, leave the realism angle to Foley/Flair.

[Guest Loss]

Loss, I thought Hogan vs. Andre from NBC had the most viewers of all-time at over 33 million people and a 15.1 rating?

I should clarify -- all-time cable rating.

 

My mistake.

[Guest Loss]

Benoit has been called a robot too

 

Landel is a great legend who has put on better matches than both Flair and Hart. He knows what he's talking about. I think Vince wanted to make him wwf champion at one time as well.

He was scheduled to be the NWA World champion and take the belt from Flair in '85 actually, but he no-showed the taping where the angle was supposed to start because he was at home strung out on cocaine. True story.

[BHK 0]

Benoit has been called a robot too

 

Landel is a great legend who has put on better matches than both Flair and Hart. He knows what he's talking about. I think Vince wanted to make him wwf champion at one time as well.

He was scheduled to be the NWA World champion and take the belt from Flair in '85 actually, but he no-showed the taping where the angle was supposed to start because he was at home strung out on cocaine. True story.

Well there goes HIS credibility in this situation...or any future one for that matter.

[geniusMoment 0]

Bret is now scheduled to be Dave's guest on WOL this Sunday, I cannot wait.

[BHK 0]

Bret is now scheduled to be Dave's guest on WOL this Sunday, I cannot wait.

Wow. That will be...interesting.

[Guest SteveyP93]

Sure, Bret had his signature moves (every wrestler does), but I never found him to be anywhere NEAR as stuck-in-routine and predictable as Flair. What exactly did Flair do in between the figure-four (or putting his feet on the ropes) besides chop, chop, and chop some more? At least Bret's "five moves of doom" were...you know, moves.

 

It's already been brought up by other people, but Bret's five moves of doom did not always mean the end for Bret's opponents. How many times did the Sharpshooter NOT work, and Bret had to rely on his technical wrestling ability to get the pinfall out of nowhere (i.e. vs. Austin at Survivor Series '96, vs. Bigelow at King of the Ring '93)? How many times did the five moves of doom fail to set up the Sharpshooter, and then later in the match, Bret would grapevine his opponent's legs out of nowhere (i.e. vs. Perfect at SummerSlam '91, vs. The Patriot at Ground Zero) and apply the hold? And, if we're going to compare Bret to Flair, how many times did Bret do the J-O-B? Sure, Flair is NOW putting everybody over, but Bret did jobs in his prime.

 

Michaels, Nash, Owen, Yokozuna, Lawler, Bulldog, BOB BACKLUND...how many guys did Bret selflessly put over in his prime in order to get something over for Vince?

 

Who did Flair put over when it actually meant something? Steamboat? And I'm sure he had a big say in doing the job to Hogan.

 

Bret has said this many times (which means nothing, but it can be backed up by video tape), but he worked hard to make sure that even when he beat somebody, they came out of the match looking a little bit better than they did before it. Kevin Nash would be a great example of a guy that Bret worked hard to get over. He also did it for guys LaFitte, Hakushi, Bulldog (everybody knows the story behind their SummerSlam '92 match, where Davey blew up and forget the whole match 30 seconds in)...Austin! He MADE Austin.

 

Flair SAYS that he tried to make his opponents look good, but if you watch his matches, it's pretty clear that he's full of shit. And what's the second part of that quote? "My philosophy is that if you make your opponents look good, you'll look good." That's what Flair was all about. Who did he ever "make" aside from Sting? And he certainly didn't make Sting like Bret made Austin.

 

And for the record, I agree, Austin vs. Bret > Steamboat vs. Flair. Sevenfold. Quit living in the past.

 

Bret owned Flair in this argument. Flair's arguments are streaked with jealousy and can be easily ripped to shreds, Bret deals with 97% fact.

 

Also, you can call Bret a hypocrite for calling Flair routine (which he isn't, because Bret's NOT routine), but keep in mind that Flair drew first blood. If anyone doesn't have the right to be calling other wrestlers routine and predictable, it's FLAIR.

[Guest MikeSC]

They are both great but I think Flair was out of line on many levels...Bret always put on great matches and made many a superstar that went on to be considered the greats of wrestling(Stone Cold,Davey Boy, Owen, Shawn to an extent as well as UT, especially VINCE!!)

Bret didn't "make" Shawn, UT, or Vince. Austin is one incredibly large stretch.

while setting the scene for the greatest run the WWE has ever sean...

Bret was responsible for an explosion he wasn't there for and that didn't happen for about 6 months after he left?

without his heel run I don't WWF(E) could've reached those levels...

His heel run hardly set the world on fire.

Montreal remade Vince and set up that magnificent run for all of those guys while Bret was F'd over in WCW...

Then that would be VINCE's credit for using it to his advantage and making himself into an on-air character like that.

I mean if you wanted to compete with Vince why do the things to Bret that they did.

Because

a) Vince is a MUCH better booker than almost anybody WCW has had.

b) As Vince told Bret, WCW had NO clue how to use him.

the controversy was at fever pitch levels because of that and only a deaf,blind mute(or Vince ala Invasion or NWO) could've wasted such an opportunity

I'll go ahead and address this canard.

 

The WCW Invasion WOULDN'T work for a simple reason --- NOBODY in WCW drew. At all. They hadn't drawn SQUAT for more than a few years at that point. It'd be like blaming the NFL for the lack of success for the WLAF and NFL Europe. This also works for the nWo, an angle as much responsible for WCW's death as any.

.....anybody who disagrees is retarded

Intelligent debate, fare thee well.

just watch SummerSlam 92...no match has come close to levels of that greatness

Quite a few have, actually.

King of the Ring 93...even SummerSlam 93 was great because of the efforts of Bret with a retired legend(the King) and Lex with Yoko

Umm, yeah. Sure.

yeah Flair made Sting and his feud Funk was off the charts but Bret made more of an impact on this sport that most have in the last decade or so...in a shoot match Bret would whip damn near anybody besides maybe Brock or Angle(Owen too)

1) Pro wrestling isn't a shoot, so this is more than a little irrelevant.

2) Flair is actually a competent amateur wrestler. No guarantee Bret could take him.

3) Bret's impact on the last decade is negligible, at best.

Flair would have had no chance against him at any point in his career

It's all a work, you know.

Bret Hart is the greatest wrestler in the history of the business hands down and Flair is simply afraid that his legacy might be tarnished

He wasn't even the best in the WWF or WCW at any point.

remember that being 16 time champ only means that he lost the title more anybody else too

It's a work. Remember? It's all booked.

had Bret not only had the misfortunes of Montreal,Owen, WCW politics, Davey's death, family manipulation from Vince and fucking Goldberg kicking him into oblivion but a stroke from all of this bullshit that killed his in ring career

Flair only had WCW fucking him over more, a plane crash that broke his back, etc. Yeah, Flair has had a FUCKING easy time in life.

Bret didn't have the continued platform that Flair had to continually renew his positionas the greatest..this article was amazing..Bret may have have been over emotional but anybody who has a brother who has died will relate to his position...and his points on Flair were dead-on...people may say Bret bitches too much but damnit all of you are always interested in what he has to say...I praise everyone on this board who stands with the Hitman because he deserves nothing less

Methinks you're a bit too emotionally connected here.

-=Mike

[Guest SteveyP93]

Austin is one incredibly large stretch.

 

How is this a stretch?

 

Austin's first main event feud was with Bret (greatest feud in wrestling history, too), Austin's first truly great matches were with Bret (including the greatest match in WrestleMania history), Austin cut the best promos of his career on Bret, and Austin's defining moment was WrestleMania 13.

 

Yeah, Bret didn't do shit for Austin's career!

 

People act like Austin was on fire from the moment he cut his Austin 3:16 promo, which is not true. From there, he went to beating Yokozuna in a comedy match on the SummerSlam pre-show. His career didn't take a leap until Bret agreed to work with him.

 

Would Austin have become the next big thing without Bret Hart? Maybe. Given the direction that he was headed in before Bret entered the picture, I can't honestly say that it was his destiny. Would he have reached the same level of stardom without Bret Hart? No fucking way. There are just certain moments that define a career, and his feud with Bret defined his. Nobody else would have done.

[Guest MikeSC]

Austin is one incredibly large stretch.

How is this a stretch?

 

Austin's first main event feud was with Bret (greatest feud in wrestling history, too), Austin's first truly great matches were with Bret (including the greatest match in WrestleMania history), Austin cut the best promos of his career on Bret, and Austin's defining moment was WrestleMania 13.

 

Yeah, Bret didn't do shit for Austin's career!

Austin would've gotten over working with ANYBODY decent at that point.

Would Austin have become the next big thing without Bret Hart? Maybe. Given the direction that he was headed in before Bret entered the picture, I can't honestly say that it was his destiny. Would he have reached the same level of stardom without Bret Hart? No fucking way. There are just certain moments that define a career, and his feud with Bret defined his. Nobody else would have done.

Numerous others would have done.

 

Hell, Shawn would have done. Would have done better, to boot.

-=Mike

[nl5xsk1 0]

First of all, MikeSC reminding people that this is a work is both a riot, and seemingly very necessary. Nothing cracks me up more than people presenting facts about why "A" is better than "B" by pointing out who won more matches/titles/etc. It's all fake, none of those things really prove anything in an argument.

 

Bret owned Flair in this argument. Flair's arguments are streaked with jealousy and can be easily ripped to shreds, Bret deals with 97% fact.

Re-read the Hart's article ... there are a ton of opinions in it, and opinions do NOT equal facts. Truthfully, both guys have monster egos and neither are completely without fault in this debate.

[Promoter 0]

Loss, so Hogan vs. Andre and Flair vs. Sting hold the tv ratings numbers respectively of all-time. Just more suspicion that I always stated that wrestling was bigger in 1986-1989 timeframe than the attitude era. I knew it was bigger back then just by being on NBC. I always get into that argument. I also never knew about Landell's incident either. Good stuff.

 

I've read another net writer's opinion on this Flair/Hart debate and he made a point that Bret and Flair really aren't the same kind of wrestlers. His argument was that Flair was like a Rock in terms of mic work and being a colourful personality, while Hart was somewhat of a Chris Benoit. That was just an extreme view, but I got the point he was making. Anyone agree with this? He said for what Bret excelled in he smoked Flair and vice versa. He also said that this is just a personal vendetta now with both men trying to cut the other's legacy, so they can be seen as the greatest of all-time.

[Guest SteveyP93]

Austin would've gotten over working with ANYBODY decent at that point.

 

Numerous others would have done.

 

Hell, Shawn would have done. Would have done better, to boot.

 

Wrong.

 

What got the feud over was that Bret and Austin were similar, yet exact opposites.

 

Both were technical wrestling machines...later they tried to get Austin over as a brawler with little technical skills, but if you listen to the commentary at the time, this is what J.R. was getting over.

 

Bret was the ultimate hero, Austin was the ultimate anti-hero.

 

Bret was the established legend, Austin was the hungry up-and-comer.

 

Bret wanted to come back and continue his legacy in the WWF...Austin wanted to kill his comeback before it ever got started in order to make a name for himself. Bret wanted to get on with his life and become WWF champion again, but Austin just wouldn't let him. Which ultimately lead to Bret snapping...

 

Also, Austin wouldn't have been able to cut all of those classic promos if he wasn't cutting them on Bret. He needed the ammunition that Bret provided.

 

You're missing out on the subtle details that made the feud such a classic. It couldn't have been done with Shawn. Sure, matches would have been good, but the feud wouldn't have been as hot. Besides, you can't have a match better than *****.

 

You honestly think that Austin could have done anything better with Shawn at WrestleMania 13? Bret gave him the greatest rub of all time. Withstanding the pain of the Sharpshooter (the most dreaded, over submission finisher in WWF history) and passing out in a pool of his own blood MADE his career...period, end of story. Bret also gave him the greatest WrestleMania match of all time. You can't beat that match, even AUSTIN HIMSELF will tell you that.

[Promoter 0]

Austin and Bret really had the best feud of the 90's between two wrestlers that delivered in the ring. Bret was also apart of the mega feud with HBK. Bret was also apart of Mr. Mcmahon's character growth. Are people forgetting stuff like the 97 Rumble and the night after? Bret did help make Austin a star because a lot of things revolved around Bret in those days. I do't think this can be disputed.

[Shanghai Kid 0]

They're both good workers, but what puts Flair over the top is the mic work and charisma, that's whats going to make Flair way more memorable than Bret. You can talk about Flair being a comedy wrestler and all that crap, but he could cut a seriously intense promo whenever he wanted.

 

 

By the way, HBK>Bret Hart

 

And has Bret done anything better than Flair/Steamboat?

[haVoc 0]

Lance Storm gave his opinion.

 

Flair vs. Bret

July 14, 2004

 

I wasn't going to get into the middle of this but it seems I must. As you are probably aware, Bret Hart and Ric Flair are having a War of Words. Ric bashed Bret in his book, and Bret has retaliated on his website. ( www.brethart.com ) I didn't want to get into this because battles like this never seem to serve any good. Bret Hart fans will remain Bret Hart fans, as will Ric Flair fans. The only thing accomplished is that the business gets a black eye. The reason I'm going to add the following words on this subject is that I received an e-mail after my commentary endorsing Flair's book. In my commentary I made the statement that I thought this book was the best wrestling book, "there is, was or ever will be." The e-mail I received was wondering if my use of the Bret ism, was a shot at Bret and an indication I was siding with Flair, on their battle of words.

 

Let me assure everyone that my use of the Bret ism was due to me being a big Bret Hart mark, and nothing more. I stole the line solely in an attempt at a cheap pop. The truth be told the one exception I did have with the book was Flair's bashing of Bret. While I certainly think everyone is entitled to their opinion, Flair's comments seemed very out of place and there simply to take a personal shot at Hart. If you haven't read the book, Flair is talking about his departure from WWE and states he was asked to drop the title to Bret, he did so, and then takes three or four paragraphs to state that Bret didn't draw, was repetitive, was a big mark for himself, and shouldn't be considered a great worker. This was only a few paragraphs and really seemed out of place. I choose to ignore it since it is such a small portion of the book, which is why it didn't detract from my enjoyment of it.

 

Bret has since rebutted Flair by calling him nothing short of a repetitive hack with no ring psychology, who was clumsy and dangerous. I think it is safe to say that these two individuals have issues with each other and I think it's best we all make our own judgements on their work. If you enjoyed Flair's stuff, great and if you enjoy Bret's that's great too. If you are like me and enjoyed them both, all the better. I know I will be asked a million times whom I consider the better worker, but to be honest I don't know. I've never worked with Bret (Likely the biggest regret of my career), and I've only worked Ric one time and according to his book, it was a time when he was at his worst.

 

This brings up another question I got about my Flair book commentary. I was asked what I meant when I said:

 

I now better understand why the one match we had together (A tag match with Christian and I defending the WWE Tag Team Titles against Flair and the Undertaker) was the way it was. If I knew then what I knew now, it could have been so much more an honour and special night for me, instead of the frustrating and confusing night it was.

 

In the book Flair talks about confidence issues and the mental state he was in after leaving WCW the last time. He said he was having anxiety attacks and was having a hard time even functioning in the ring for a very long period of time. It was during this period of his career that the match I mentioned took place. In that match Flair was a baby face with Taker and during the match Flair was constantly calling spots that made absolutely no sense what so ever. I was dumb founded and confused during the match because I was in there with a Legend and felt like I had to call over him to salvage a match. At the time I assumed that Ric was just a terrible baby face and so accustom to being the heel that he kept trying to shine us and take all the bumps. After reading his book I now assume that it was due to his anxiety attacks and confidence issues and that he was not mentally there for the performance. If I had known he wasn't at his best for the match I would have loved to have had the privilege of call the match for him.

 

Now I know this statement goes to endorse what Bret has said but I find it hard to believe that the performance he had with me is typical Ric Flair. He has had great matches with so many people over the years. I think quite probably they are both great workers, each with their own strengths and flaws. Like many things in wrestling it is all a matter of taste. I preferred Bret's matches, but preferred Flair's promos. I think Flair was a bigger part of the wrestling industry because his career spanned a greater number of years and Bret was on top far lesser a time and really only worked for the one company. (I refuse to acknowledge Bret's WCW years because he was so absurdly wasted.)

 

I think the best advice for everyone can be found in Flair's book when he says it is best to judge people on how they treat you and not how you've heard they've treated others. I know Flair fairly well and he has always been a class act with me, and I will judge him on that and treat him accordingly. I only met Bret three times and have nothing but respect for him, he too in my eyes is a class act, and will treat him accordingly. I think all of you should do the same, when looking at their work. You don't need us to tell you who you think is great and who you want to be a fan off. You've seen their matches you can make up your own minds. Don't let this battle of words tarnish either man's place in your heart's or this industries history.

 

Till next week,

Lance Storm

[Guest Loss]

Sure, Bret had his signature moves (every wrestler does), but I never found him to be anywhere NEAR as stuck-in-routine and predictable as Flair. What exactly did Flair do in between the figure-four (or putting his feet on the ropes) besides chop, chop, and chop some more? At least Bret's "five moves of doom" were...you know, moves.

I'd agree that Bret was far more willing to mix it up than Flair. However, I get the feeling you're not comparing prime to prime here. There were simple things, like holding his opponent's leg on the ropes and then dropping down on it, or kneedropping the knee, that Flair stopped doing as he got older. He started using a belly-to-back suplex to transition to the figure four in most of his matches instead of using the aforementioned moves.

 

Flair's transitions and offense repertoire deteriorated quite a bit into the 1990s.

 

It's already been brought up by other people, but Bret's five moves of doom did not always mean the end for Bret's opponents. How many times did the Sharpshooter NOT work, and Bret had to rely on his technical wrestling ability to get the pinfall out of nowhere (i.e. vs. Austin at Survivor Series '96, vs. Bigelow at King of the Ring '93)? How many times did the five moves of doom fail to set up the Sharpshooter, and then later in the match, Bret would grapevine his opponent's legs out of nowhere (i.e. vs. Perfect at SummerSlam '91, vs. The Patriot at Ground Zero) and apply the hold? And, if we're going to compare Bret to Flair, how many times did Bret do the J-O-B? Sure, Flair is NOW putting everybody over, but Bret did jobs in his prime.

 

I agree on the stylistic differences between Flair and Bret. As I've said a half a million times in this thread, there is a major difference between jobbing and putting someone over. Flair took Sting, who was about the equivalent of where The Hurricane is now, and carried him to a 45-minute draw on national television. If HHH did that for Helms now, Helms would come out looking great.

 

But, if doing jobs is all that matters, then the argument is a stalemate, if, again, we're comparing each man's prime to the other. Bret won five world titles in the 1980s and Flair won six. They're comparable here.

 

Michaels, Nash, Owen, Yokozuna, Lawler, Bulldog, BOB BACKLUND...how many guys did Bret selflessly put over in his prime in order to get something over for Vince?

 

Quite a few. I won't doubt Bret's professionalism. But I won't doubt Flair's either.

 

Who did Flair put over when it actually meant something? Steamboat? And I'm sure he had a big say in doing the job to Hogan.

 

Sting.

 

Again, there is a big difference between doing a job and putting someone over. I cite Nash/Misterio as an example, but there's also Rock/Hurricane, Hall/Jericho and many others as well.

 

Bret has said this many times (which means nothing, but it can be backed up by video tape), but he worked hard to make sure that even when he beat somebody, they came out of the match looking a little bit better than they did before it. Kevin Nash would be a great example of a guy that Bret worked hard to get over. He also did it for guys LaFitte, Hakushi, Bulldog (everybody knows the story behind their SummerSlam '92 match, where Davey blew up and forget the whole match 30 seconds in)...Austin! He MADE Austin.

 

I agree with all of this, but keep in mind that it was BRET who told us all that Davey blew up 30 seconds in. That hasn't been substantiated anywhere else. I'm inclined to believe it's true, but we've never seen anyone else say that happened.

 

Flair SAYS that he tried to make his opponents look good, but if you watch his matches, it's pretty clear that he's full of shit. And what's the second part of that quote? "My philosophy is that if you make your opponents look good, you'll look good." That's what Flair was all about. Who did he ever "make" aside from Sting? And he certainly didn't make Sting like Bret made Austin.

 

Perhaps you should read this thread, specifically my posts, and look at the multiple times I've listed everyone Flair has made. And name a Flair match that you've seen where you can site specific examples of him taking liberties. I'm willing to listen, but I want examples, just like you gave for Bret.

 

And for the record, I agree, Austin vs. Bret > Steamboat vs. Flair. Sevenfold. Quit living in the past.

 

Austin v Bret is in the past too. Most of the best matches happened in the past. This doesn't help your argument.

 

Bret owned Flair in this argument.

 

This I'd agree with, actually.

 

Flair's arguments are streaked with jealousy and can be easily ripped to shreds, Bret deals with 97% fact.

 

Many of Bret's arguments could be ripped apart as well. I'm glad he responded because it's made for some great discussion.

 

Also, you can call Bret a hypocrite for calling Flair routine (which he isn't, because Bret's NOT routine), but keep in mind that Flair drew first blood. If anyone doesn't have the right to be calling other wrestlers routine and predictable, it's FLAIR.

 

Flair was giving his honest view on Bret. I agree that he was more repetitive than Bret.

[CanadianChris 0]

You don't need us to tell you who you think is great and who you want to be a fan off. You've seen their matches you can make up your own minds. Don't let this battle of words tarnish either man's place in your heart's or this industries history.

 

Till next week,

Lance Storm

Amen. Both were great, and deserve to be remembered as such, no matter what they may think of each other.

 

Austin would've gotten over working with ANYBODY decent at that point.

 

Numerous others would have done.

 

Hell, Shawn would have done. Would have done better, to boot.

 

Your vision of alternate universes must be better than mine. History shows that Austin's feud with Bret absolutely MADE his character. Debating whether he would've done better with someone else is pointless.

[Guest Loss]

Loss, so Hogan vs. Andre and Flair vs. Sting hold the tv ratings numbers respectively of all-time.

Not now. The most watched wrestling match now would be Austin v Undertaker from the 06/28/99 RAW. The Flair/Sting match broke a record at the time and held it until Clash IX, when Flair-Funk broke it. Flair/Funk was the most watched cable match ever until 1999, when several segments topped it.

 

Just more suspicion that I always stated that wrestling was bigger in 1986-1989 timeframe than the attitude era.

 

I think had the WWF had a major network deal in the late 90s that they would have been getting ungodly ratings. The 80s peak lasted longer, but the 90s peak was a bit higher.

 

I knew it was bigger back then just by being on NBC. I always get into that argument. I also never knew about Landell's incident either. Good stuff.

 

Thanks. I didn't know this until Meltzer started doing This Day In History posts a while back, and I wish he'd start again. To elaborate, Landell ended up getting fired after this because Dusty rightfully felt like he had been let down. He ended up in Memphis, which is where almost every castaway in wrestling went for nearly 20 years, and had a hot feud that drew really well where he teamed with Dundee against Lawler and Dutch Mantel.

 

I've read another net writer's opinion on this Flair/Hart debate and he made a point that Bret and Flair really aren't the same kind of wrestlers. His argument was that Flair was like a Rock in terms of mic work and being a colourful personality, while Hart was somewhat of a Chris Benoit. That was just an extreme view, but I got the point he was making. Anyone agree with this? He said for what Bret excelled in he smoked Flair and vice versa. He also said that this is just a personal vendetta now with both men trying to cut the other's legacy, so they can be seen as the greatest of all-time.

 

No doubt. However, Bret showed more character depth than Benoit has up until this point. He was actually competent on the mic. He wasn't colorful, but he was realistic and he did some really great interviews. I point specifically to the heel turn promo the night after Wrestlemania XIII. He worked with bullet points better than just about anyone.

 

Flair is the best interview of all time. I haven't seen anyone else come close.

[Guest brethart]

Sorry Ric Flair is famous for these spots. I am not debating with you no more your clearly a idiot.

The first 6 or so pages of this thread were actually some interesting discussion. Then that person showed up.

 

Posts along the lines of "Flair sucks bret rules" aren't really doing anything for the thread, so either back it up or please stop.

 

I like both Flair and Hart. I happen to like Hart more becasue I grew up on 90's WWF. I've seen 80s wrestling, NWA and WWF. I'm not bashing it at all. The Flair/Steambot seires is an awesome series of matches. Survivor Series '96 and Wrestlemania 13 just do more for me. I just find it kind of sad that two great wrestlers have to tear into each other like this.

 

A lot of the people that have posted in the thread are either diehard Flair or Hart fans. There's nothing wrong with enjoying both of them, they're both grat wrestlers. one just happens to be more technical than the other.

Sorry, but hassling me to do a Scot Keith type reveiw of Ric Flair, and Bret Hart matches is a cheap tatic.

 

Ric Flairs matches with Steamboast where by far his best perfromaces, but Flairs major flaw is the fact he does stupid spots that take away from the drama of the match. I am not flaming i was called the idiot first. If i have to prove to someone that Flair did the same high spots match after match, they are clearly nuts.

 

Perhaps i am being so harsh, becuase i was lead to believe Flair was a the greatest ever. Perhaps if i was told he was a limited worker who made up for thiks by being one of the most charismatic stars ever, i would be a bit more kinder towards him. Steamboat Bret Hart the Macho Man those are 3 wrestlers greater than Flair IMHO.

[Guest Loss]

Sorry, but hassling me to do a Scot Keith type reveiw of Ric Flair, and Bret Hart matches is a cheap tatic.

No, it's not a harsh tactic. It's giving you the opportunity to make your point by saying "THIS happened in THIS match." Those who claimed Flair took liberties, aside from Bret, have yet to name any specific examples.

 

Ric Flairs matches with Steamboast where by far his best perfromaces, but Flairs major flaw is the fact he does stupid spots that take away from the drama of the match.

 

Such as?

How?

When do they happen?

How is the drama ruined?

 

I want specifics, and I think everyone reading does too. My mind is open, and you may convince me.

 

I am not flaming i was called the idiot first. If i have to prove to someone that Flair did the same high spots match after match, they are clearly nuts.

 

This was not your argument before. Your argument was that Bret's matches were better. So prove it. I laid it out for you. Do it. Please.

 

Perhaps i am being so harsh,  becuase i was lead to believe Flair was a the greatest ever. Perhaps if i was told he was a limited worker who made up for thiks by being one of the most charismatic stars ever, i would be a bit more kinder towards him.

 

Is this brethart talking or Bret Hart talking?

 

Steamboat Bret Hart the Macho Man those are 3 wrestlers greater  than Flair IMHO.

 

How?

What matches did they have that were better?

What specifically did they do better than Flair?

What could Flair have done to get up to their level?

How much Flair have you seen?

How much Steamboat have you seen?

How much Savage have you seen?

 

Until you're willing to answer all of these questions, you're wasting the time of everyone here by throwing out statements like that and not explaining yourself.

[Guest brethart]

Sorry, but hassling me to do a Scot Keith type reveiw of Ric Flair, and Bret Hart matches is a cheap tatic.

No, it's not a harsh tactic. It's giving you the opportunity to make your point by saying "THIS happened in THIS match." Those who claimed Flair took liberties, aside from Bret, have yet to name any specific examples.

 

Ric Flairs matches with Steamboast where by far his best perfromaces, but Flairs major flaw is the fact he does stupid spots that take away from the drama of the match.

 

Such as?

How?

When do they happen?

How is the drama ruined?

 

I want specifics, and I think everyone reading does too. My mind is open, and you may convince me.

 

I am not flaming i was called the idiot first. If i have to prove to someone that Flair did the same high spots match after match, they are clearly nuts.

 

This was not your argument before. Your argument was that Bret's matches were better. So prove it. I laid it out for you. Do it. Please.

 

Perhaps i am being so harsh,  becuase i was lead to believe Flair was a the greatest ever. Perhaps if i was told he was a limited worker who made up for thiks by being one of the most charismatic stars ever, i would be a bit more kinder towards him.

 

Is this brethart talking or Bret Hart talking?

 

Steamboat Bret Hart the Macho Man those are 3 wrestlers greater  than Flair IMHO.

 

How?

What matches did they have that were better?

What specifically did they do better than Flair?

What could Flair have done to get up to their level?

How much Flair have you seen?

How much Steamboat have you seen?

How much Savage have you seen?

 

Until you're willing to answer all of these questions, you're wasting the time of everyone here by throwing out statements like that and not explaining yourself.

Your annoying me.

 

I post on a public computer. So i cant watch any DVD's right now. I think the Drama in most Flair matches where ruined by his spots. I am offering that opinion, i dont have to offer any specifics. I think its stupid i have to offer specifics when i am talking about spots Flair did in every single match.

 

When i talk about how disapointed i am about Flair, this is Alex Brown talking. Sorry i treid my hardest to like classic Flair matches. I tried to look extra hard for Flair greatness, but its not there. Perhaps i am totally insane, but i see nothing speical about Flair apart from this promos.

 

 

Ok Steamboat has a better match with the Macho Man. Even though it was a lot shorter, and had a screwy finish. There wrestlemania 3 match is slightly better than anything Flair did with Steamboat.

 

Every single match Bret had is better than anything Flair has done.

 

Heres a few matches Flair can never hope to touch ever.

 

Bret Vs Owen Hart Wrestlemania 10 (There is there cage match too.)

 

Bret Vs Shawn Micheals Wrestlemania 12

 

Bret vs the Undertaker over the Edge. (Just as good as Shawns hell in the cell match, except Bret didnt need the cage to get a good match out of Taker.)

 

Bret Vs Stone Cold Steve Austin Wrestlemania 13 ( There was a other match they had before this one that was great too.)

 

Bret Hart Vs Mr Perfect.

 

Bret hart Vs British Bulldog

 

In these matches Bret wrestles a serious varied style. List me some Flair matches that you think i havent seen, and will change my mind, and i will try to track them down.

 

 

PS: I am arguing the fact that Flairs style of wrestling was limited, and distracted from the Drama of the matches. If you like flip flops over the ropes, and for your heel to be more amusing than the babyface stealing his heat fine, we have diffrent tastes.