Was RIC Flair a Good In-Ring Worker

TheBigBopper

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
8,278
Reputation
-2,160
Daps
15,378
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.
 

threattonature

Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
23,807
Reputation
3,769
Daps
76,075
The Flair formula was needed during his prime. I'm reading old observers from 84 and god damn I have no idea how Flair kept up his schedule. It seemed like 75% of the American territory updates would have a Flair title defense against the top wrestler in each territory. Long ass matches too and all of seeming good quality. He seemed to be the best at going in and putting over the top wrestler in each territory to the point they were even bigger after wrestling Flair cause he did such a great job of making his opponents look strong which makes him one of the GOATs.
 

TheBigBopper

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
8,278
Reputation
-2,160
Daps
15,378
the hilarity is some of people's favorite "wrasslers" like Bret, Angle were even more formulaic
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.
 

Jmare007

pico pal q lee
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
44,962
Reputation
5,994
Daps
109,814
Reppin
Chile
Here we go again with blaming Flair with a "formula" :beli:

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 :pachaha:

Bret Hart > Flair

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 :yeshrug:
 

2 Up 2 Down

Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
28,099
Reputation
2,844
Daps
67,734
Reppin
NULL
He was good but I personally didn't care that much for his matches outside of a few.
 
Top