Bret Hart or Ric Flair

[Guest bigm350]

Evidently Flair had more time at the top than Bret did, since Flair had so many more World title reigns, but I wondered about this, since, I think, many of Bret's detractors say he was never a draw. But, I know Bret was huge in Canada, and was big internationally, so I'm not too sure how valid a "Bret isn't a huge draw" statement would be. Any solid facts about who was the better draw?

[Guest wood]

Unquestionably Ric Flair.

 

Bret Hart is nobody. Ric Flair is a legend.

[daileyxplanet 0]

Ric Flair, but only because he was on top unquestionably longer, and Bret Hart unfortunately didn't.

[CanadianChris 0]

Flair. He was on top so long for a reason.

[Si82 0]

As much as I love Bret Hart, and had this been simply a personal choice between the two I would have picked Bret, I'll have to go with Ric Flair. He was on top for many, many years and always drew.

[Guest BrokenWings]

Everyone else has already covered it...this could have gone in a "Comments which don't warrant a thread". Flair by quite a bit, he was on top for well over a decade, in both the NWA/WCW as well as WWF.

[Perfxion 0]

Well, Flair was the top from 1983(1978 if you are counting NWA:Mid Atlantic) to 1989 and then from 1992 through 1994. Ommitting 1988, 1990, and 1991.

 

Bret was the top man in 1994, 1997. So just by that Flair wins.

 

The problem is that Flair was riding the boom when on top. But had Dusty, Ole's booking, and then Hogan to kill any kind of long term drawing power. Dusty Finishes killed off the NWA, Black Scorpion killed BOTH Flair and Sting, Herd tried to end his career, then Hulkamania finished off his drawing power.

 

Bret was depushed for big fat heels and the clique bullshit, so it is not fair to call him a draw or not. The only years when he was the number 1 man was in 1994 and 1997. 1994 was great for him but the crap around him killed him, only worth noting his matches with Owen and Backlund. And with 1997, you know how well that year ended for him.

 

here would be a better question: Who got screwed more throughout their career: Bret or Flair?

[Guest JMA]

Flair drew well everywhere EXCEPT the WWF. People tend to forget that 1992 was the WWF's worst financial year. However, this can't really be blamed on Flair because Hogan didn't have a reign with the belt that year--the same thing would've happened to anyone holding the belt then. It just goes to show how much of a draw that Hogan was at the time.

 

Regarding the original question, it's clear that Flair drew better than Hart in most places. Yet it's been stated by others (correctly) that wrestling was white hot then and Flair had more years on top.

 

The problem with this whole thing is that no wrestler was a phenominal draw after Hogan left until Austin. There were some good and average draws, but nothing really stood out. Diesel's failure has been well documented, as has Shawn Michaels' run with the title (which can't be blamed on him). Bret actually did draw as champion (this was confirmed by Meltzer) but not on the level of a Hogan or an Austin.

 

Short answer: Flair drew better in most places.

[Guest JMA]

here would be a better question: Who got screwed more throughout their career: Bret or Flair?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a great question. Hart had the Clique and later McMahon, while Flair had Herd, Hogan, and especially Bischoff.

 

My first instinct is to say that Hart got screwed more. His first title run was ended due to the whole Yokozuna/Hogan thing, he had to fight tooth and nail against the machinations of the Clique, and left the company in the worst way possible. While Flair was treated like crap by the aforementioned people, he still had periods where he was treated good or even great. He had the last match on Nitro and is constantly put over by Triple H and Shawn Michaels (who he puts over in return).

[cabbageboy 0]

This is actually a pretty tough question. The easy thing to say is Flair here but if you really want to look at Flair's peak years the NWA was getting its ass kicked by the WWF. Not that it was really his fault with the Dusty booking and all that, but the constant pushing of the Horsemen without them ever really getting theirs is a notable reason Crockett went bankrupt.

 

Flair actually only had the WWF title from Jan. 92 till WM 8, so it's tough to blame him for the post WM blahs when business tanked. It was Savage who had the title then.

 

That said the answer is still Flair. Bret was never really ever THE MAN in the WWF aside from maybe 1994 (by 97 they were gearing Austin up for his run). I would note though that Bret easily outdrew Flair when both had the title in 1994.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Are you guys sure about Flair not drawing well in WWF? I was under the impression that WWF's numbers started declining after Warrior won the title, and then Flair coming in started a short "hot" period again in WWF. I could be wrong, though.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

No, 1992 was down all year. There was a pretty lengthy discussion over at Wrestling Classics about this. Flair didn't draw squat, but no else did either. It was less about him as it was the convergence of many factors, including the loss of Hogan, the steriod scandal, etc.

[Guest Zarock]

Ric Flair. There really is no question.

[cabbageboy 0]

The weird thing is that around this board I'd say 1992 is a very well liked time period in wrestling. I think the main problem financially for the year was post WM they lost a lot of star power and the post WM feuds were all really horrible and cheesy. Stuff like Warrior/Shango and UT/Berserker had no potential to draw money.

 

I dare say 1992 is my favorite year in wrestling, but I guess that's mainly because I got back into it again after not watching for a couple years.

[Guest JMA]

The weird thing is that around this board I'd say 1992 is a very well liked time period in wrestling.  I think the main problem financially for the year was post WM they lost a lot of star power and the post WM feuds were all really horrible and cheesy.  Stuff like Warrior/Shango and UT/Berserker had no potential to draw money.

 

I dare say 1992 is my favorite year in wrestling, but I guess that's mainly because I got back into it again after not watching for a couple years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought 1992 was one of the better years of that decade, but I'd put 1997 ahead of it in the WWF. I was somewhat disappointed by 1992 due to the possible matches that could've happened but never did. Otherwise it was a good year from a fan's perspective.

[ISportsFan 0]

1992 is a great year for the WWF to us because, simply, they put out about 2 ***1/2+ matches per PPV. The Rumble had the best Rumble match ever, WrestleMania had Bret/Piper and Savage/Flair, SummerSlam had Savage/Warrior and Hart/Bulldog, and Survivor Series had Bret/Michaels and the Flair+Ramon/Perfect+Savage tag. This is considerably better than other years. Also, when there were good matches in prior years, they were all located low on the card. In 1992, the good matches were high profile.

[reign 0]

I completely agree that 1992 was an above average year for the F...all the PPVs from that year are good and the tv IIR was ok too...just because people aren't watching doesn't mean it isn't any good...