Paid Members Carbomb Posted February 5 Paid Members Share Posted February 5 1 hour ago, air_raid said: Ooooh, bold. I thought I was brave preferring Rock vs Austin III to the perverts' favourite, HBK vs Y2J. I actually prefer Rock vs Austin from 19 to any other match they had with each other, on top of any other match from that Mania. And possibly several years' worth of Manias to that point. Especially with Austin flipping Rock the "III" instead of the bird in the build-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 On 2/5/2024 at 12:25 PM, Merzbow said: Speaking of that era of Hogan, his match with [Redacted] the 'Mania after was even better, I'd even go as far as saying it was the best match on the card among some truly great bangers. The image of [redacted]’s bloody face appearing above the ring apron is the enduring image of that PPV for me. It was indeed a great match. Hogan also had really good matches with Undertaker, Angle and Lesnar, and that fun tag run with Edge. Man had his working boots on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted February 6 Paid Members Share Posted February 6 1 hour ago, Loki said: Hogan also had really good matches with Undertaker, Angle and Lesnar, and that fun tag run with Edge. Man had his working boots on. He did a fair few house shows too. Well, they matter to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members herbie747 Posted February 6 Paid Members Share Posted February 6 I have 2 unpopular opinions. Ric Flair matches are boring. I think Undertaker is way overrated as a worker. All his good matches have been with great workers, and when he's not in the ring with someone like HBK he's had some of the worst plodding stinkers in WWF/E history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merzbow Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 18 minutes ago, herbie747 said: I think Undertaker is way overrated as a worker. All his good matches have been with great workers, and when he's not in the ring with someone like HBK he's had some of the worst plodding stinkers in WWF/E history. I'm not sure how unpopular that is here but in general, yeah. 'Taker has year after year after year of just being shit, both match and gimmick-wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBacon Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 I enjoy Takers matches with Shawn and Bret, but that's mostly down to them. I've always thought he was shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted February 7 Paid Members Share Posted February 7 (edited) 9 hours ago, herbie747 said: Ric Flair matches are boring. The thing with Flair in his prime is any one match in isolation is very good but as a body of work most of his matches were incredibly samey. There weren’t enough times that he had to go out of his comfort zone and structure the match differently - the Funk rivalry of 89 is a good example of when he did. It’s funny, so many people (including Flair) criticise Bret for having the same match over and over because he had “six moves of doom” he liked to do, but in terms of being a “formula man” Flair was far worse. Go back and watch Brets first four singles matches on Big 4 PPVs in the WWF against Perfect, Piper, Bulldog and Shawn, they each have completely different structure and tell very different stories. When I think of Flairs rigidity, I think of how he put Sting over for the belt at Great American Bash 90, and how they couldn’t even be arsed to do a different finish to how Sting pinned him at Starrcade just months earlier. Much as many fans thought his WWE return wasn’t vintage Flair, at least he did matches that markedly different to the rest, thinking about his violent matches with Mick Foley or a personal favourite when he wrestled Kurt on Raw and each seemed obsessed with being the better at cheating. 9 hours ago, herbie747 said: I think Undertaker is way overrated as a worker. All his good matches have been with great workers, and when he's not in the ring with someone like HBK he's had some of the worst plodding stinkers in WWF/E history. I don’t think a lot of wrestling fans to our level of fandom rate him as a worker. I think his level of reverence is inflated by (a) company rhetoric and (b) millions of Facefuck and Twatter casuals hanging comments off posts by wrestling accounts proclaiming him “the best ever” - he was their favourite character when they were watching growing up (and I have a few mates who never grew out of that), they’ve spent so many years asking “Is Undertaker still going” to hear that he was, that the combination of their favourite + longevity must make him “the best ever.” Even though most of them haven’t watched it since Austin was stunning Pat and Gerry every week. Edited February 7 by air_raid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB6937 Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 12 minutes ago, air_raid said: The thing with Flair in his prime is any one match in isolation is very good but as a body of work most of his matches were incredibly samey. There weren’t enough times that he had to go out of his comfort zone and structure the match differently - the Funk rivalry of 89 is a good example of when he did. It’s funny, so many people (including Flair) criticise Bret for having the same match over and over because he had “six moves of doom” he liked to do, but in terms of being a “formula man” Flair was far worse. Go back and watch Brets first four singles matches on Big 4 PPVs in the WWF against Perfect, Piper, Bulldog and Shawn, they each have completely different structure and tell very different stories. When I think of Flairs rigidity, I think of how he put Sting over for the belt at Great American Bash 90, and how they couldn’t even be arsed to do a different finish to how Sting pinned him at Starrcade just months earlier. Much as many fans thought his WWE return wasn’t vintage Flair, at least he did matches that markedly different to the rest, thinking about his violent matches with Mick Foley or a personal favourite when he wrestled Kurt on Raw and each seemed obsessed with being the better at cheating. This captures it perfectly for me. I remember when I got the Flair DVD set I was looking forward to it because there was a lot of older stuff I hadn't seen. And yet I think I only watched that set once and it took me ages because it was so repetitive. Bret's set became one of my most watched. And he's one of my all time favourites. The "excellence of execution" wasn't just a gimmick or catchphrase. He genuinely was and his ability to adapt was second to none. If only he'd adapted to Bill Goldberg's boot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted February 7 Paid Members Share Posted February 7 I don’t mean to turn it into a Bret thread, but he wrestled five matches between King of the Ring and SummerSlam 93, and the story he told on both of those PPVs was fantastic. To paraphrase a great man, “Tell me a story in the ring, not on your bus.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavemanLynn Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 With Flair, you have to consider what he was tasked with doing as NWA champion to properly appreciate him - he had to tour the territories and get their local guy over without weeks of feeler matches or planning. His skill was in walking his opponent around the ring, leading him through holds and heat, teaching the guy how to get the most out of the least while still having a dramatic main event level match. It's why I actually prefer watching his matches with young Sting, Luger, and Kerry von Erich to the bigger, 'better' names. Loads of heels have liked to say "follow me, kid", but Flair is the only one I've seen to actually do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted February 7 Paid Members Share Posted February 7 yeah, Flair was a formula guy because it's what it needed. And a lot of his formula is built around stuff that he can do with anyone, and relies on very little from the opponent - so if he turned up to an arena late, went straight from his car to the ring, and his opponent was a guy he'd never met before and who didn't speak English, he knows that he can still rely on the bump off the top rope, the running knee drop, the Flair flop, the begging off spots, all of that stuff that doesn't rely on the other guy knowing how to take it or having any particular skills. But it's the skill-set of a touring champion you see wrestle every once in a blue moon, not of a guy you should be watching on TV every week - I think Bret was probably the first, and maybe the best, to refine a formula down to weekly TV wrestling and knowing that the same audience watched your last four matches, maybe recorded them, and knows all your tricks. It's also one of the reasons I think Flair and Hogan never properly worked in the WWF - they're both formula guys, but both of their formulas are built predominantly on selling for the other guy. There's key moments where they overlap - Flair begging off while Hogan does his comeback - but the majority of the match wouldn't work for a WWF audience, because they're used to seeing Hogan fight from underneath against big monster opponents then make his comeback in the final third, and Flair wasn't convincing in that role, nor was it where his formula fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavemanLynn Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 @BomberPat I was going to comment on the Bret vs Flair comparison but couldn't articulate myself, but I think you're dead-on here. Although Flair obviously had no trouble when it came to performing for the camera, his in-ring work was still very much in the vein of a touring champion working the crowd at hand, where broader strokes were OK to stick to, whereas Bret had the complexity of execution as well as the layers of additional meaning across weeks/months of TV build that stood up on the small screen. Two different approaches, that had decent but not spectacular results when combined (I've heard Bret thinks Flair sabotaged their matches, but I'm more inclined to think it was Flair trying to stick to his strengths and ease up on Bret's harder-working/bumping style). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted February 7 Paid Members Share Posted February 7 I've said it before and I'll say it again - Charlotte Flair >>> Ric Flair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarlettChad Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Shawn Micheals 2002-2010 run was boring melodramatic shite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Factotum Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 4 minutes ago, TheScarlettChad said: Shawn Micheals 2002-2010 run was boring melodramatic shite Anything he did with Triple H in that time was awful bar the Summerslam comeback match. The 'feud' and the DX stuff was utter tosh. Also throw in his feud with [REDACTED] which was terrible as well. However, the heel turn on Hogan and his feuds with Jericho during this time were good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.