Here we go again with blaming Flair with a "formula"
Every damn wrestler worth a damn has a formula. You might not like the ones Naitch had (because yes, he had more than one) and that's cool but I don't think y'all realize how y'all sound when throwing that statement around. Your favorites also have a formula
I feel this is a very philosophical question when it comes to wrestling's tastes. Considering what I like in wrestling, Bret should be ahead in my book. But he isn't, it's not even close actually, I value Flair waay more than Bret.
Hart as always been like a perfect wrestling robot in my view, he just doesn't connect with me even though I recon how he excelled at basically everything he did inside the ring. Naitch was way "dumber" when it came to work, but the fukker is always compelling to watch.
I don’t really get it. I was born in ‘89, so by the time I started watching wrestling, flair was way out of his prime. But I watch his old matches and feel underwhelmed. Dude does the same corny ass contrived spots every single match and wins by the skin of his teeth. He’s a hokey heel version of 1980s Hulk Hogan only with a wider move set. Flair is a 8 or 9 on the mic but I don’t understand the hype over his ring work.
Difference between these guys and flair is that his spots seem more like cut scenes from a video game than just the typical five moves of doom. Flair always does that begging on his knees shyt, then the low blow, the bump off the top rope after attempting a cross body, the flair flop and the flip over the rope. He does entire formulaic sequences—it’s not realistic—whereas the other guys just do moves that show up in every match.
I always struggle with this. A Flair match against Jumbo or Tenryu is fairly different than one against Brody or Wahoo McDahiel. And both of those matches are different than a match against Barry Windham