Ric Flair WOOOOOO!!

[hinkey1]

This is an interview of Ric Flair from 2004 on Michael Landsberg's show Off the Record. On the show, Ric really lays it on thick to Bret Hart.
Ric even says Bret isn't "a star". How can this be true? He was THE STAR from 93-96 till HBK came along. Your thoughts



[youtube]GCcVtMbFZKo&hl[/youtube]

 

[JerryvonKramer]

That's not what he's saying if you actually watch it: he's saying that Bret didn't draw during that time. And, certainly, if you had to pinpoint a "dark age" for the WWF it would be 1994-6 which corresponds exactly with the period in which he was champion.

I'm not sure I agree entirely with Flair (he's such a suck-up to McMahon), I mean Bret was a greatest worker of all time, but don't misunderstand what he's trying to say. He's not saying Bret wasn't a good wrestler, he's saying he wasn't a proper main eventer.

It's like Cena now. He's been pushed to main event level but is he over? Can he draw? Can he carry the promotion? No. Same with Bret in 93-6. Also, it wasn't "till HBK came along". Shawn as a main eventer in roughly that same period. It was Austin 3:16 that changed things. And, unlike Bret, Austin was a massive draw.

 

[hinkey1]

Ok its linked. But I disagree. I personally don't consider a wrestler a "main eventer" (in WWE) until they win the World/WWE championship. Guys like Mark Henry, Ken Kennedy, MVP have competed in title matches, but have yet to win the gold. IMO none of them are main eventers at this point in their careers.
HBK became THE GUY in march 1996, plain and simple.

Also, John Cena is a draw. If he weren't then Vince would have turned him heel awhile ago. He sells merchandise, talks well, and everyone gets on their feet when his music hits.

On a final note, there's no question Austin drew. He was the biggest draw in history according to Vince McMahon himself in this video:



[youtube]Zs9ZjCl4swo&hl[/youtube]

 

[JerryvonKramer]

You don't have to win the title to be a main event draw. Andre the Giant was never champ. Ted DiBiase was never champ. And they were both arguably more over and bigger draws than Bret ever was and both headlined at Wrestlemanias, Summerslams and Survivor Series. Also, a heel can be a draw -- if the fans hate someone enough that they'd pay to see him get beat. That's the principle most of Ric Flair's career was built on.

None of which changes the fact that Bret didn't sell in 1993-6. It's as simple as that. It was clear in 1993 when they put the title back on Hogan and then on Yokozuna while trying to push Luger to the moon and it was even more clear when he jumped to WCW in 1997 and failed dismally to get over despite pushes and title reigns.

 

[hinkey1]

I see your point concerning Andre and Dibiase. But I'm talking about WWE TODAY. Back then there were a bunch of superstars who weren't champions. Its different today becuase they get more TV exposure, the audience wouldn't be happy if the same guy was champion for 4 years (like Hogan was). The PPV would be too predictable.

There's no question that today in WWE, to be a main event star, you gotta get a title reign on your resume.

Regarding Bret Hart though. You can't really say the guy didn't draw. Vince has said Bret "didn't pay off financially" like he had hoped. However, look at these facts:

1. Vince convinced Bret to return to WWE to do the HOF
2. Vince convinced Bret to return to WWE for the Bret Hart DVD
3. He's regarded as a Canadian hero by his countrymen
4. WWF Canadian shows were always sold out during that time
5. Bret was a 5-time champion

If Bret wasn't any kind of draw, Vince wouldn't have given him the strap 5x, or done the DVD. Guys that hold the belt 1 or 2x are flops as champs: Y2J (initially), Kane, Macho Man, Khali, Rey, Warrior
I will post yet another link where Vince explains the Bret incident. Vince admits he wanted to change Bret's character, and Bret had become difficult to work with:

[youtube]7unp4hTx10g&hl[/youtube]

I admit Flair has a point, but I'm just shocked he's such an ass about it.

 

[seven3too]

someone said quote: Also, John Cena is a draw. If he weren't then Vince would have turned him heel awhile ago. He sells merchandise, talks well, and everyone gets on their feet when his music hits.

without bias, cena draws money in merchandise cause he wears it all at the same time like a walking qvc commercial. were he in tna don west would be his manager. but he doesn't "DRAW" . flair drew in money from merch and he was controversey. you believed everything he said you can't say you didn't think he lived in the biggest house drove a lincoln,rolls royce, and a corvette had a leer jet (you had no idea what that was) and had a limo with 25 women in it. wheather all that is true who really knows. the proof is here he transended into a babyface based on a great match with ricky steamboat and did it effortlessly and did it again with his feud with the j-tex corp. terry funk, great muta, buzz sawyer,and gary hart..and then turned heel right after that while turning on the nwa's biggest new baby face, sting, thus dumping him from the 4 horsmen. and as a fan you liked flair but had luke warm feelings about ole,arn and tully. but still thought flair was a cool guy even though you couldn't trust his cronnies....and he did it effortlessly. john cena isn't a draw, because vince turned him heel on the strength that nobody likes a white guy that raps...poorly. do you think vince would've turned him when he wore matching tights and boots? no. nobody cared. if anything it made him somewhat important on the b roster. truth is, he is a guy that is young and works hard and you, as a business owner, can put many years on him. he's resilient no doubt, but look at the aging roster,HHH HBK, Jericho, edge, big show..they're getting old so for him it's right place right time...he's the bret hart of this era without the move set but far from a real draw.

 

[hinkey1]

lol I can't believe you just compared Bret Hart to John Cena. They are polar opposites performance wise. But anyway

To say John Cena isn't a draw is like saying The Undertaker really is dead.If you do your homework, and look at the PPV buyrates for Royal Rumble and Summerslam, I guarantee you're opinion will change. When Cena headlines those big events, people watch. Compare Royal Rumble 2004 to 2006 and 2007.
2004: HBK vs HHH main event
2006: Edge vs Cena
2007: Umaga vs Cena
Numbers don't lie, Cena outdrew 04' in both years. Check it yourself

 

[seven3too]

i didn't compare them i said in terms of right place right time thats the case but im assuming you weren't talking to me..of course they're polar opposites bret hart is a great wrestler john cena can just wrestle...in terms of buy rates that's irrelevant flair wasn't exactly a huge ppv buy rate either because there were no ppv's for a long time but he flair was a draw to a more mature crowd cena draws more for ages 7-18. kids want ppvs parents buy ppvs no adult is saying "hell yeah that white rapper with the spinny belt he's serious dude". gimme a break! like i said right place right time. young resilient, not an amazing proformer but it's their job to make him look amazing to their audience..... which are mostly kids. flair didn't need that he offended parents and he was and they loved to hate him...when you can't help but watch even when you hate the guy thats a draw. bret hart was a draw cause you loved to watch him wrestle cause he was great at it but he was in that grey area in between hogan era and austin era...not his fault he could have drew crowds long before his time in the light. he tore the house down at msg before wm 3 with ricky steamboat. bret hart was a meaningful ic champ can you honestly say cena was a meaningful u.s. champ? you're on drugs if you think he was he turned it into a prop..a spinner! it was a sacralige! bottom line kind of a draw but not a serious one....for kids that don't watch nickelodeon

 

[FlairFan2003]

There is an awful lot to beinga big draw, and overall revenue depends on the entire card/package, not just one guy or match.

Cena sells a lot of merchadise and he has main evented some pretty impressive PPV. If Vince & Company didn't think he could draw he wouldn't remain so prominently featured. Business isn't very good right now but you have to look at the overall economy (ppl are not spending as much money) and WWE needs to invent more superstars, they simply are low on ppl fans want to see, but that's not Cena's fault.

The overall "Attitude" era booking of WWE during the Austin heyday helped invigorate the product, and helped make Austin bigger. He was a great character who was way over with fans, but his greatest success came when he was part of a great package (actually, the centerpeice of a great package).

As for Flair on Hart, Flair has always stated when interviewed that he thought Hart was a good in ring performer. Flair has stated that he thought Hart was a lackluster character, but Flair has more than once attributed part of Hart's percieved lack of drawing power to lousy booking. IE, Hart was not part of a very good package, and WWE programming was not very good 93- 96.

Personally, if Hart would have been more willing to be a heel (he always hated being a heel, but he could excell in the role when it's all he had) AND he got better booking, he would be remembered a little better. He didn't have HBK's charisma but he was more than serviceable on the mic and he would have remained in the top tier of stars for many yrs. Really, it wasn't his "inability to draw" or lack of charisma that did him in it was a premature injury in a match w/ Goldberg. That's a shame.

Finally, niether Flair nor Hart ever give the other one a fair shake due to their personal differences. Hart is ruthless on Flair, while Flair only gives respect grudgingly to Hart. It has nothing to do with their own personal accomplishments

 

[notorious102]

Bret & HBK were similar in draws.
Flair is no different himself. He was never a huge draw.

HBK, Bret Hart, & The Undertaker were all similar in the 90's. HBK & Bret were getting their pushes around the same time & obviously their personal grudge made a difference in their careers.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

Bret was never a huge draw along the likes of Hogan, The Rock, Austin or guys like that but you can't say he didnt draw at all. As mentioned before there is a reason WWE put the strap on him 5 seperate times. Many of those were lengthy reigns, the first time he put it on him he kept it on him for 6 months. Then it is reported that he wanted to put it on him again later that year at Summerslam but Hogan didn't want to drop it to him. Then he put it on him in 94 and kept it on him for almost 8 months. He then gave Diesel a run at it and that didn't workout so who was the first person he went back to? Bret of course. It is also reported that he wanted to put the belt back on him in 97 at Mania but Michaels didn't want that so Vince ended up putting it back on him later that year. So if Bret wasn't drawing why would Vince continously give him the strap?

There's also a reason that Vince pretty much begged him to sign that 20 year contract in 96, if he wasn't drawing why would he have done that? Yes Vince wanted out of it a year later because he was losing a ton of money thanks in large part to how good WCW was at that time and he needed to cut cost and when you're cutting costs sometimes you cut the guy that is making the most money which Hart was. You see it alot in real sports, just last week the Phoenix Suns were trying to cut costs by getting rid of Amare Stoudamire, is Amare the reason they were losing money? Of course not he was one of their best players but he was also one of their highest paid which is why they tried getting rid of him. Not to mention Vince realized he had a diamond in the rough with Austin so Hart became expendable.

Also you have to realize that when Hart took over as the top guy the company was in shambles. It was right after the steroid scandal, where WWF had absolutely horrible press, many people tuned off wrestling because of that. It was also right after WWF lost the biggest name of all time in Hogan, along with many other big stars from that previous era like Savage. Many of WWF's viewers at that time started watching wrestling because of Hogan so when Hogan leaves to go to another company chances are they're gonna follow him there. Then you look at the talent he had around him, he had very little to work with. Basically it was him, HBK and Taker. It wasn't until 96 or so when WWF brought in guys like Foley, Austin, Vader among others where he started to get some big names to go with him and by that time it was too late because the NWO had already taken over in WCW. Also many people consider 95 and 96 to be WWE's worse years and those year's coincided with Bret being in the mid card for most of it(in 95) and in 96 he was off most of the year. So what does that tell you?

So Bret had the deck stacked against him from the get go and he still managed to keep the WWE a float. It is well documented that he was huge overseas and in Canada and in the U.S. he was solid considering the position he was in. So I don't think its fair to Bret for anybody to say he didn't draw a dime because that simply isn't true.

 

[titans]

Ric was an exceptional entertainer but I think he's kissing somebody's rear-end with these comments....First, Bret/Flair worked in the same company together for maybe three years (Hart wrestled 24 years)....I would have left that criticism to somebody he's work with alot longer....It's true Hart was a below-average draw in the US but he was strong international draw....I read in the thread one claimed Shawn Michaels became the man in 1996....Michaels (as talented as he is) was arguably the worst drawing champion in the history of the WWF/E.....Do your homework on that one....Bret had a much stronger impact/influence on a global scale than Shawn Michaels.