Third Round - Tokyo: Last Man Standing - Batista vs. Ric Flair

[ScreaminNormanSmiley]

In a match that Batista could not be put down in, and Cena needed to resort to cheap, underhanded tactics in order to win..

and who is better at cheap underhanded tactics than flair? if cena can think of an underhanded way to beat cena flair should have no problem thinking of something.

I fail to see how Batista "sucks in Last Man Standing matches".

as far as i know, annd correct me if im wrong but i only remember him being in two. he lost one and was in a draw the other, not exactly a great record

Fact of the matter is that he's 2-0 vs. Ric Flair, once in a steel cage match, and once in a straight up one on one match. In straight competition vs Flair, Batista has an automatic advantage.

when flair was years and years out of his prime and a shell of his former self, so that shouldnt effect this.

I fail to see any good reason why Batista loses to Flair here.

because flair is a much better wrestler prime vs prime and its not like batistas unbeatable in last man standing matches

and just so i can be like the other posters imgoing to write who i support in big bold letter. VOTE FLAIR

 

[shattered dreams]

Flair has Batista obliterated in everything kayfabe or not, aside from power moves. Against some wrestlers maybe that power move advantage is enough to win this match. Not against a legend like Flair. Flair has shown that he is resilient enough to hang around with the likes of Batista and find a way to win. The dirtiest player in the game in a match with no rules vs a wrestler who has almost no mental side to how he wrestles. Before Batista hits enough power moves to put Flair away, Flair will put his plan into action and put the bigger biceps down and out for a ten count. Vote Flair.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Who has Flair faced with the size, strength, and power of Batista. Not too many people I can tell you that. HHH isn't exactly Mr. Olympia but he put Flair down so why can't Batista? If Flair was so resilient and resourceful, why did he lose half of his matches. He lost against everybody he faced and Batista can say that not all of his equals have beaten him (HHH). Batista will jump on Flair from the start so Rick will have less energy to be resourceful. Putting Batista in the Figure Four isn't going to cut it because he couldn't put HHH down with it knowing Hunter's history with quadriceps. Batista should win this around the fifteen minute mark and it looks like revisionist history may take over here.

 

[Big Sexy]

Who has Flair faced with the size, strength, and power of Batista.

He faced a bigger, stronger, more powerful, faster, and overall better superstar in Vader and he defeated him inside of a steel cage.

HHH isn't exactly Mr. Olympia but he put Flair down so why can't Batista?

Because Flair was over fifty fucking years old then. Seriously people need to stop bringing up shit from when Flair was a shell of his former self. If this was senior citizen Flair vs Batista then yes Batista gets the win. But this is the dirtiest player in the game from when he ruled the NWA and defeated some of the biggest names in the industry.

If anything a 50+ year old Flair almost beating a prime Triple H in a LMS match should prove to everyone that he WOULD go over Batista here.

If Flair was so resilient and resourceful, why did he lose half of his matches.

He didn't. Flair didn't start losing a lot until the 90's when he was already past his prime.

Batista will jump on Flair from the start so Rick will have less energy to be resourceful.

I'm not sure who Rick is, but RIC averaged over 30 minutes a match during the mid to late 80's and this whole "he's going to be gassed argument" is a complete load of crap.

Putting Batista in the Figure Four isn't going to cut it because he couldn't put HHH down with it knowing Hunter's history with quadriceps.

It did a lot of damage though and a younger Flair would have been able to finish the job.

and it looks like revisionist history may take over here.

You and the Batista supporters are the only ones guilty of this. Completely dismissing Flair's prime and how good he really was.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I'm not saying Flair was horrible back in the 80's. I just don't think he was great as everybody thinks he was. I don't care if his matches averaged 30 minutes. If Batista wrestled when Ric was at his best, he wouldn't need 30 minutes to beat him.

This is not a steel cage match so what's the point of bringing him beating Vader in a steel cage match. It's not that hard to win one.

Flair still lost more in his prime than Batista did in his and beat everybody he faced. Batista FTW.

 

[Big Sexy]

I'm not saying Flair was horrible back in the 80's. I just don't think he was great as everybody thinks he was. I don't care if his matches averaged 30 minutes. If Batista wrestled when Ric was at his best, he wouldn't need 30 minutes to beat him.

He most definitely would, if Batista can even go 30 minutes that is.

This is not a steel cage match so what's the point of bringing him beating Vader in a steel cage match. It's not that hard to win one.

You said Flair never beaten anyone as big, strong, and powerful as Batista. I proved you wrong. And it wasn't a normal cage match he beat him in, it was in a thundercage. You couldn't win by escaping or climbing out. It had to be by pinfall or submission and Flair made Vader give up to the figure four. It was actually very similar to a HIAC match.

 

[pun2003hh]

If Batista goes over Ric F'n Flair in a Last Man Standing match, a match that was tailored to the 80s version of Flair, I may have a coronary. In a last man standing match, the biggest asset to a competing wrestler is his stamina. In the 1980s, no wrestler had the stamina and the threshold for pain that Ric Flair did. No one.

The point of a Last Man Standing match is to out last your opponent, and Flair was going 60 minutes in brutal matches every night. I have never seen Batista in a match that went over the 30 minute mark, and no matter how much you try to deny it, endurance is the most important factor of the match. What is the Animal going to do when he out punches and kicks himself to exhaustion at about the 20 minute mark?

Add to this the fact that Flair was taking down muscular power wrestlers through out his NWA title reigns, including Von Erich, a young Sting, Steamboat, and The Road Warriors. All of these guys can be considered power wrestlers at that time, and in my personal opinion, all of the are more skilled the Batista. And Flair beat them all. In a match where the key is to outlast your opponent, and in a match with no rules, Flair should have no problem outlasting the initial onslaught of Batista, and then going to work on him when he is winded.

Flair wins.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

In the 80's every match averaged around 30 minutes as Big Sexy alluded to so why is Flair the only one that has the stamina? I still ask the question why does the length of the match matter? I've seen Last Man Standing matches last 30 minutes and I've seen some last 10 minutes. It doesn't make that much of a difference how long the match is. Steamboat wasn't exactly the strongest guy out there so I would imagine Batista could handle him in a test of strength. Batista has won long matches against Cena, Undertaker, HHH, Edge, etc. Batista has a high threshold of pain too so you can't claim Flair is the only one in that department. You don't have to be skilled to win a Last Man Standing. All Batista has to do is do what he does best: use his strength and power to take down Flair as he has done everybody else.

 

[Dan E. Inferno]

Wow, this is really close. In fact it was 52-52 before I cast my vote, so I guess I'll have my say while it counts. In the earlier rounds, I was mostly going by who deserved it more or who I prefered more rather than looking at it from a kayfabe match-up point of view. In that case I would have voted Flair undoubtably.

However, now there are gimmicks involved, it's more fun to look at it from a kayfabe point of view, and that resulted in me choosing Batista. I think it would be a real tight, back and forth match like most LMS matches are, but I see Batista being able to finish of Flair with his ability to take a beating and his brute strength. As we've seen, Batista can be vulnerable to the dreaded duct tape, but I'm just going to assume there wasn't any around that day.

So, Batista with the Batista Bomb on the steel steps, or something like that, for the 10 count and the win.

 

[Mr. Truth]

Flair in the NWA was a member of the Four Horsemen.

In a match with no rules, he's going to have the help of these men. Batista doesn't have the backup Flair has. With these guys in Flair's corner, there's no way Batista is going to win.

 

[Coco]

Why Batista Won't Lose to Ric Flair:
All You Need to Know
In TWO Simple Points​

1) Batista Doesn't Decisively Lose to Wrestlers Like Flair

Batista's become one of the most dominant wrestlers of this generation, finding himself on the receiving end of only two decisive losses in the last five years. Those came at the hands of John Cena and the Undertaker. Men who he also defeated decisively, being one of only a handful of men to do so. Only one other man has cleanly defeated both members of that legendary twosome over the last five years. These two men are known for their clean wins and their ability to hit that unbeatable knock-out punch. For all of Flair's success, he's never quite had that combination and delivered it as powerfully as either Cena or the Undertaker. So it's quite clear, Batista gets left laying by a certain kind of wrestler. And Flair is not that kind of wrestler.

When it comes to men who sneak away with victories and fight dirty, they never leave Batista laying after the match. Men may occasionally score a fluke count-out victory, escape the cage quicker than Dave, or catch a quick roll-up. But Batista always gets the last laugh on those nights. He always comes out looking stronger and he's always standing defiantly and asking for his opponent's best shot. And in a match that lends itself to men who dish out decisive ass-kickings, Batista defeating Flair is almost a certainty. Flair can't sneak away with with a quick roll up. He can't run the clock out. His back-up doesn't matter as Batista's fended off stables far too many times not to be prepared for a couple henchmen. And he doesn't have the resolve to be the last man standing while Dave his left on his back. Flair's a men who made a career of holding onto the title while looking like a bitch. He can't handle what Batista has to offer.

2) Flair's Stamina Advantage Means Nothing

Batista doesn't wrestle long matches. This is a fact that I have to concede to. However, it's being incorrectly interpreted by my persistent opposition. You see, Batista doesn't wrestle long matches because he doesn't have to. He normally finishes his business and dishes out his decisive ass-kickings in such an efficient manner that he has time to shower, socialize, and still make it back the hotel in time to catch some room service.

Ric Flair, on the other hand, can't say the same. He's a man who spent many a match trying to run down the clock because he simply had no answer for the man he stood across the ring from. He had to stall because he wasn't man enough to face somebody head-on. Flair spends forty-five to an hour in the ring so often out of necessity. He does it because he's getting so consistently thrashed that he has a hard time mounting a decisive, match-ending comeback in a timely manner. Flair's offense is soft, and it only becomes a factor after his opponent has clearly established himself as the better man. With a man as dominant as Batista, he would have a near-impossible time surviving the initial onslaught.

I've seen some people here claim he'll run Batista out, get Batista blown up. I would imagine that's what these same people thought a man like Shawn Michaels would do to Dave in 2008. What actually happened when the supposed endurance machine that is HBK came head-to-head with Dave in am environment similar to a Last Man Standing match at One Night Stand that year? Batista squashed him. Now, we know that Michaels loses quite often in big matches. But he's known as a man who takes people to their limit. That's not what happened that night. It was one of the most decisive losses Shawn Michaels has suffered as a headliner.

VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD: VOTE BATISTA

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

THREE REASONS WHY RIC FLAIR WILL BEAT BATISTA IN A LAST MAN STANDING MATCH

BY: THE LARIAT

I'll give Coco some credit. At least he's not going down without a fight for one of the worst main event wrestlers in the last 10 years. But I'm going to go ahead and tell you why Ric Flair will beat Batista in a Last Man Standing match or ANY kind of match.

1) RIC FLAIR WINS BIG MATCHES.

So, Coco says that Flair specializes in having the hell beat out of him and finding a way to escape, and is overrated because of that. What Coco doesn't understand is that at Ric Flair's peak as a pro wrestler, he NEVER LOST BIG MATCHES! Aside from a loss to Ricky Steamboat and a loss to Sting, Flair won matches when they counted. And in this case, where it's single elimination, you know damn good and well that Ric Flair will pull out every stop he can make to win this match. Which leads me to my next reason.

2) RIC FLAIR HAS INFINITE RESOURCES AT HIS DISPOSAL

When you're nicknamed 'The Dirtiest Player in the Game', there's a reason for it. Flair cheats, takes shortcuts, gouges eyes, knife-edge chops, using brass knucks. You name it. He's done it. He also uses ... wait for it ... PEOPLE! As many are aware on this forum, Flair is the centerpiece of the single greatest collection of wrestlers in history. The Four Horsemen. You really think that Ole Anderson, Arn Anderson, and Tully Blanchard are going to let Senor Lex Luger Batista beat Flair in a big match? Absolutely not. And lets not forget J.J. Dillon, who always has a plan if the Horsemen get taken out for a few. Last Man Standing is anything goes, and no disqualification. Batista is officially fucked. Remember, he 'Walks Alone'. Because that's what his song says. So he'll have no one come out to help him with the Horsemen. Triple H? LOL. Nah. HHH would take a shot at Batista before he would Flair. Randy Orton? ROFL. Orton would take them BOTH out if anything. Brother D-Von? Maybe. But I doubt it. So Batista has to depend on his brute strength to win this. Will not work for him.

And finally... my third reason.

RIC FLAIR IS THE 60 MINUTE MAN! SPACE MOUNTAIN! HE'S THE NATURE BOY...WOOO!

Let's get down to brass tax. Many discount Flair's wrestling ability because of it's redundancy. And for some, they think it's cool to 'hate' on the older guard of pro wrestling. The forefathers if you will. Ric Flair carried a promotion on his back for nearly 10 years. And he did it by challenging all comers who wanted a shot at his NWA Worlds Heavyweight title. We're talking promotions across the world. Japan, Europe, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, China, Burkina Faso, Sweden, Greenland, and Antarctica. Maybe not the Arctic, but you get my point. Ric Flair has done it all...and then some. Name a major wrestler in the past 30 years, and Ric Flair beat them. How he beat them is irrelevant. This isn't a style points match. All it takes is Flair to keep Batista down for a count of 10. And Batista's not exactly Harley Race or Dusty Rhodes here. The Animal is one dimensional, who depends on his power to win. What happens when you're not about to lift Flair for a Batista Bomb because of a leg injury? Or use a Spinebuster effectively? What else can 'Tista do? Lose. That's what he can do. And he WILL do.

So vote for Ric Flair. Vote for the greatest Heavyweight champion that ever stepped foot in a wrestling ring. Wooo!
​

 

[Coco]

1) RIC FLAIR WINS BIG MATCHES.

Congrats on lying to the people of WZ. Do you expect they won't see through your thin distortions of the truth?

Flair's taken major, HIGH profile losses to the likes of Dusty, Sting, Savage, Hennig, Fujinami, and the list goes on and on. He's taken losses consistently against Hogan when it mattered the most. The notion that Flair doesn't lose big matches is ass-hatted, as he takes just as many high profile losses as he does wins. And forget big matches. He loses LOTS of matches, PERIOD. Ron Garvin. Ricky Steamboat. Kerry Von Erich. Bret Hart. Savage some more. Is there anyone who hasn't taken a turn trouncing Ric Flair? Heck, you didn't even cover the breadth of the losses you bothered to mention.

Aside from a loss to Ricky Steamboat and a loss to Sting

"A loss to Sting." That's it? Try being taken to the limit by the Stinger as a rookie, losing the belt to him at the GAB, and suffering a loss to him in the Ironman tournament. "A loss to Sting" doesn't cover the big time stages he's owned Flair on.

Do you intend to continue your little revisionist history marathon? Or are you going to respect the people for a change and tell them a truth?

Go ahead. Let's hear some more lies.

When you're nicknamed 'The Dirtiest Player in the Game', there's a reason for it.

THIS. IS. PATHETIC.

This is the exact same thing Will would do when he got desperate last year.

When there was no logical reason for Edge to win, he'd simply state that Edge being the Ultimate Opprotunist meant he'd find a way to win. No matter what. It was like a cheat code. It was an argument that wasn't argument, an assertion that was never backed up by hard fact in many a match where Edge deserved to be destroyed.

And now you're trying to lead people down that same path to ruin this year with Flair playing the role of Edgeward.

Shame on you, Lariat. You'd think one of the forum's most respected members would at least be man enough to return that respect and not play these smoke and mirror tricks on the fine people of the board. Shame on you indeed.

Included in this was the usual reasoning that Batista would be out-matched by the Horsemen. The Horsemen wouldn't let Flair lose a big match, would they?!!

Oh, wait. Reality says they have let Flair lose big matches. Ooops.

Of course Batista has no idea how to deal with a numbers game!... Wait, also false. He went long stretches having to deal with lackies. And he did it successfully.

But, in typical Lariat fashion, you've done a nice job sending the intelligent people of WrestleZone a nice big "Fuck you!" Could you be any more brash?

RIC FLAIR IS THE 60 MINUTE MAN! SPACE MOUNTAIN! HE'S THE NATURE BOY...WOOO!

Ah, yes. "Vote for Ric Flair because he's Ric Flair." There's an expectation here that posters who never saw Flair in his prime but have heard the legends will vote for him just because. Because it's the smart thing to do. Because the old-school wise and obviously learned posters of the board say it's okay, so it must be. However, what you do here spits in the face of the gimmick rounds and the tournament as a whole. Why even bother having a Last Man Standing match if people like you are just going to cover your ears and scream "He's Ric Flair! He can't lose!" until the cows come home?

The fact that you have such little faith in the people's ability to make a logical decision about who would be the Last Man Standing is disturbing in its own right. Couple that with the damn solid argument that exists for a Batista win, and the decision is clear.

Vote Batista.

 

[a0161613]

I won't get into a debate but I voted Flair, who at his peak, beat pretty much everybody in some form. Batista had a great 2005 thanks to HHH and is going through a great spell now opposing Cena but he has failed on the big time more than he has succeeded.

Flair have lost 15 World titles but his reigns were more substantial and happened in a tougher era.

It would be a classic though.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I'm going to have to back Coco here. Most of the arguments I've read for Flair - and, delightfully, they keep being printed in larger and larger fonts - seem to be pretty fluffy and distorted by nostalgia.

Flair is one of those wrestlers who everyone says "Oh, you have to see this match" and "Yeah, this match is an absolute masterclass" about. You finally get around to seeing the match and sure, it was good, but you've seen a few better matches in the last couple of months alone.

Besides, I've never got this "Wrestler A never lost to Wrestler B, so it makes sense that he could beat Wrestler C" mentality. Batista over Flair just seems like common sense to me.

I'VE NEVER BEEN A FAN OF CHOCOLATE HOB KNOBS

 

[Supernova]

Yeah the arguments for Flair are quite pathetic in some regards. He may be the "Dirtiest Player in the Game" have The Four Horsemen but Batista "Walks Alone" so he's used to being a one man army and thus will crush Ric Flair in record time.

 

[Adam08]

I am voting for Batista its takes a lot to put him done in a last man standing match and while Ric is good and can probably take a hell a lot of damages. I don't think it will be enough to keep Batista done for a long period of time.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

Congrats on lying to the people of WZ. Do you expect they won't see through your thin distortions of the truth?

I'm not lying.

Flair's taken major, HIGH profile losses to the likes of Dusty, Sting, Savage, Hennig, Fujinami, and the list goes on and on. He's taken losses consistently against Hogan when it mattered the most. The notion that Flair doesn't lose big matches is ass-hatted, as he takes just as many high profile losses as he does wins. And forget big matches. He loses LOTS of matches, PERIOD. Ron Garvin. Ricky Steamboat. Kerry Von Erich. Bret Hart. Savage some more. Is there anyone who hasn't taken a turn trouncing Ric Flair? Heck, you didn't even cover the breadth of the losses you bothered to mention.

Well... you act like all Flair does is lose. When you wrestle an active schedule for nearly 35 years, some losses take place. You have an off night, or you get too confident (which is why Sting, Steamboat, and Von Erich beat him). What I CAN prove... is that plain and simply... when the MOST is on the line, Flair rarely if EVER loses. Hennig beat him with a rollup. Flair wanted out of the WWF and this was his way of doing so. So that doesn't even count in my opinion. Same goes for Hart. Flair was not satisfied in the WWF, so he dropped the belt to Hart in Canada. Flair had no motivation in those matches. There's PLENTY in this one. And when he's focused... NOBODY beats Flair. Ask Harley Race, Ronnie Garvin, Dusty Rhodes, STING, Lex Luger, Vader, DDP, Jeff Jarrett, Randy Orton, Jerry Lawler, Antonio Inoki, Ricky Steamboat, or Jumbo Tsuruta about trying to beat a Ric Flair hell bent on not losing. It's impossible.

"A loss to Sting." That's it? Try being taken to the limit by the Stinger as a rookie, losing the belt to him at the GAB, and suffering a loss to him in the Ironman tournament. "A loss to Sting" doesn't cover the big time stages he's owned Flair on.

OWNED?! Nah. Merely being overconfident is all. If you've won it all and done it all, it's tough to take a rookie seriously. And that's Flair's fault. He went into the match with little expectations of having a fight on his hands. He won't do this with Batista.

Do you intend to continue your little revisionist history marathon? Or are you going to respect the people for a change and tell them a truth?

The truth is that Dave Batista has no fucking business being IN the ring with Ric Flair at his peak. I can prove this all day long. Because there are much, MUCH better wrestlers that Flair's beaten and in more high profile matches than Batista. The Animal is one dimensional and yea... he's prone to make bonehead mistakes and let his pride get in the way of trying to merely win the match, and instead, trying to Mame his opponent, which would be his downfall in a match that can't be decided by pinfall.

Go ahead. Let's hear some more lies.

You acting like Batista is the greatest wrestler in the past five years is a much bigger lie than anything I've said. We're talking about a guy who's had ONE great year in his wrestling career, and less than 10 years experience overall. And you're saying because he does a power bomb and his mean, that he can beat one of the greatest wrestlers of all time? If that were the case, Sid Vicious would beat him. And, by the way, Sid is actually BETTER than Batista, IMO.

THIS. IS. PATHETIC.

Pretty sure it's not.

This is the exact same thing Will would do when he got desperate last year.

And look how far it took him.

When there was no logical reason for Edge to win, he'd simply state that Edge being the Ultimate Opprotunist meant he'd find a way to win. No matter what. It was like a cheat code. It was an argument that wasn't argument, an assertion that was never backed up by hard fact in many a match where Edge deserved to be destroyed.

Didn't Edge beat Batista like a drum for over a year? Think he did. Ol' Dave had THREE chances to regain his WHC from Edge, and COULD NOT DO IT! Not in a regular match, not in a cage match, not in ANY kind of match. What makes you think that Ric Flair would have trouble beating him? Someone who does what it takes to win at any cost has a better chance of winning. Flair is a guy who when his back is against the wall, he finds a way. Batista folds under pressure and has done it his whole career. Ric Flair is known for being the man in the big match. NO ONE bets against Flair in a big match, and this would be no different.

And now you're trying to lead people down that same path to ruin this year with Flair playing the role of Edgeward.

.

You can play it however you want, but Flair has the credentials to back up anything he's done. Edge is overrated because he's in an era where titles changed hands every 15 minutes or so. Flair wrestled nearly 35 years and won 16 titles. That averages out to him having a title reign lasting nearly 2 and a half years on average. In an era where he defended his title nearly every night at one point.

Shame on you, Lariat. You'd think one of the forum's most respected members would at least be man enough to return that respect and not play these smoke and mirror tricks on the fine people of the board. Shame on you indeed.

Shame on YOU for trying to put over one of the worst wrestlers in the last 10 years. Batista was rejected from the fucking Power Plant in WCW. The POWER PLANT. He became jacked up and managed to land in the WWE because of his look alone. He's Lex Luger with a bouncer background instead of a football background. Batista is one track minded and someone who has managed to have trouble in the simplest of matches and circumstances. What makes you think he can manage a win against Ric Flair in a Last Man Standing match? Flair could probably talk Batista into sitting on the floor and watching him cut a promo long enough to win the match.

Included in this was the usual reasoning that Batista would be out-matched by the Horsemen. The Horsemen wouldn't let Flair lose a big match, would they?!!

Oh, wait. Reality says they have let Flair lose big matches. Ooops.

Flair lost matches... but when the going was tough and he had the most on the line, Flair won. Period. 35 years and losing very few matches is something I can live with. Wrestling less than a decade and losing MANY big matches is something that's pretty average.

Of course Batista has no idea how to deal with a numbers game!... Wait, also false. He went long stretches having to deal with lackies. And he did it successfully.

The Four Horsemen aren't lackeys. Arn Anderson fucked people up. Ole Anderson fucked people up WORSE than Arn, and Tully Blanchard would have been a decorated World Champion if he broke away from the Horsemen, but he was a team player and very sadistic. Trust me, if they got ahold of big Dave, it'd be a stretcher job. I mean, Batista does a mere spinebuster and tears a quad. What would happen if he actually had his leg worked on?

But, in typical Lariat fashion, you've done a nice job sending the intelligent people of WrestleZone a nice big "Fuck you!" Could you be any more brash?

I could be, because it's asinine to think I have to constantly come in here and mudhole stomp you verbally. But deep down, the majority know Flair can beat Batista. It's just a matter of some people liking Batista more due to personal reasons.

Ah, yes. "Vote for Ric Flair because he's Ric Flair." There's an expectation here that posters who never saw Flair in his prime but have heard the legends will vote for him just because. Because it's the smart thing to do. Because the old-school wise and obviously learned posters of the board say it's okay, so it must be. However, what you do here spits in the face of the gimmick rounds and the tournament as a whole. Why even bother having a Last Man Standing match if people like you are just going to cover your ears and scream "He's Ric Flair! He can't lose!" until the cows come home?

It's your job to prove Flair CAN lose. If you can't handle that, then be quiet. And your hatred of the older guard of the wrestling world is crazy. It's not that every old school wrestler can beat a newer wrestler. But we're talking about a man who reigned supreme over wrestling for years and years. Hogan drew more money, but Flair had better matches. Someone like Nikita Koloff or Rick Martel or Terry Taylor would be dead meat against Batista and they're old school. So that's not the case at all. The better wrestler should win. And that's why Flair should win this match.

The fact that you have such little faith in the people's ability to make a logical decision about who would be the Last Man Standing is disturbing in its own right. Couple that with the damn solid argument that exists for a Batista win, and the decision is clear.

That's not true at all. The decision isn't clear. Argument wise, I've kicked your ass across this thread. I know this. You know this. What it boils down to now is who is more popular at the moment. And to be honest, Batista may win that, because many younger folks see Flair as a blithering old man who's nuttier than a fruitcake. I could say the same for Jerry Lawler. Lawler's known as a commentator and a guy who's obsessed with boobs. Back in his day though, he was a tough customer and in Memphis, he didn't lose matches. But many don't know that. My job is to educate people on the background of some of our older legends. Lots of posters don't even know about Flair's wrestling from the 80's and 90's. So if I can present a case where Flair beats Batista, I'm going to do it. And you're argument boils down to Batista beating The Undertaker and John Cena and Batista being strong. How's that a solid argument? If that's the case, Mr. Anderson would beat Ric Flair. So yea... not solid at all.

Vote Batista.

Vote for whomever you want. As long as you know the background of the wrestlers in the tournament.

 

[Hulkamaniac]

So the crux of people's argument is that Ric Flair will lose to batista because Batista is bigger then Flair? Well then, let's just call the tournament and hand it over to Andre. Come on now, be serious. Kayfabe wise, Flair was a strategist par excellence. Not only that, he can take a RIDICULOUS amount of punishment in his efforts to give it. Ric Flair would literally annihilate Batista's legs, rendering them borderline useless. Chairs, steel steps, figure four around the ring posts...Batista would be literally unable to stand at some point.

 

[Coco]

What I CAN prove... is that plain and simply... when the MOST is on the line, Flair rarely if EVER loses.

He took it up the ass consistently against Hogan and Savage with everything on the line. He's lost his World Championships on major stages. He's lost Loser Leaves Town matches.

You're talking absolute shit that doesn't stand up in the face of anything you responded to.

Honestly, do you read what you're responding to?

Flair wanted out of the WWF and this was his way of doing so. So that doesn't even count in my opinion.

Yeah, that makes a TONNE of sense. Instead of taking the entire loaf of bread that is Flair's career, you're taking a crumb here and there that supports your flawed point of view and tossing the rest by the side of the road.

At least I take the hits against Batista as they come. You just cover your ears like a God damn toddler and say it doesn't count. What's next? No tag backs? Are you five or twenty-five?

Same goes for Hart. Flair was not satisfied in the WWF, so he dropped the belt to Hart in Canada. Flair had no motivation in those matches.

Same as above. This isn't a rational reason to write off those matches as it's nothing to do with kayfabe. Flair lost them straight up. We can't just ignore them because it doesn't support your silly notion that Flair doesn't lose.

And when he's focused... NOBODY beats Flair. Ask Harley Race, Ronnie Garvin, Dusty Rhodes, STING, Lex Luger, Vader, DDP, Jeff Jarrett, Randy Orton, Jerry Lawler, Antonio Inoki, Ricky Steamboat, or Jumbo Tsuruta about trying to beat a Ric Flair hell bent on not losing. It's impossible.

Ah, I see.

"Ric Flair only loses because he lets people win. But this is completely different than all those times where he so totally let the other guy get the better of him."

That's what you're saying here. Just when I thought I'd seen all the poorly thought out arguments you could throw at me, this doozy comes up. Wow.

This one would even make Will blush. It's that bad. Just look at it and think about it.

If you've won it all and done it all, it's tough to take a rookie seriously. And that's Flair's fault. He went into the match with little expectations of having a fight on his hands.

Great. And the all times Sting beat him? You know, after he knew what Sting brought to the table. Care to explain those losses?

Oh, right. You can't, because that hurts your argument.

Flair loses. He's not God. You're giving him too much credit. That's the truth. Even when he's taking things VERY seriously, he still takes losses.

You're lying to the people. Again.

The truth is that Dave Batista has no fucking business being IN the ring with Ric Flair at his peak. I can prove this all day long. Because there are much, MUCH better wrestlers that Flair's beaten and in more high profile matches than Batista. The Animal is one dimensional and yea... he's prone to make bonehead mistakes and let his pride get in the way of trying to merely win the match, and instead, trying to Mame his opponent, which would be his downfall in a match that can't be decided by pinfall.

That would make a lick of sense if Flair-like heels left Batista on his back on a regular basis. They don't. Cena and Undertaker put Batista on his back. Just about nobody else.

Last Man Standing, Flair isn't up to the task. As I've established. Go back and see the evidence.

You acting like Batista is the greatest wrestler in the past five years is a much bigger lie than anything I've said.

I didn't say that. I'm saying he's one of the most dominant, consistently strong looking wrestlers of the decade. That is pure fact consider how infrequently he's seen looking inferior to somebody. You cannot dispute that.

We're talking about a guy who's had ONE great year in his wrestling career, and less than 10 years experience overall. And you're saying because he does a power bomb and his mean, that he can beat one of the greatest wrestlers of all time?

Considering he has a history of winning matches nobody expects him to, he has a history of beating great wrestlers, and has even been seen squashing someone who's considered one of the best ever in Shawn Michaels, he's absolutely up to the task against Flair.

Didn't Edge beat Batista like a drum for over a year? Think he did. Ol' Dave had THREE chances to regain his WHC from Edge, and COULD NOT DO IT! Not in a regular match, not in a cage match, not in ANY kind of match. What makes you think that Ric Flair would have trouble beating him?

Examine those losses. I did earlier in this thread. You see, I, unlike you, don't feel the need to hide from the true history of the man I'm backing. Because nothing you can say muddies his reputation for being the better man.

JD'07: Roll-up exploiting a pre-existing leg condition.

Odds of Flair winning like that: NON-EXISTENT

ONS'07: Escape from the cage.

Odds of Flair winning like that: NON-EXISTENT

Vengeance '07: Count-out.

Odds of Flair winning like that: NON-EXISTENT

Batista never looked like a beaten man, which is what it'll take in a Last Man Standing match.

What you failed to say? Five days later on SmackDown, Batista soundly defeated Edge in singles action, getting the last laugh in over Edge. He came away as the better man and proved his dominance. Batista can replicate that dominance here against Flair. And it'll lead to victory, unlike any of the defeats he suffered against Edge.

Flair wrestled nearly 35 years and won 16 titles. That averages out to him having a title reign lasting nearly 2 and a half years on average.

Which would make sense if Flair wrestled for 35 years AS CHAMPION.

Fuck it, you're just being facetious for the sake of it at this point. I know you're not this stupid.

I mean, Batista does a mere spinebuster and tears a quad.

Batista's never torn his quad doing a spinebuster.

Facetious. Again.

Blah, blah, blah. People know I'm right. Blah, blah, blah. You know deep down that I've owned you. Blah, blah, blah. I don't really have anything of value to add at this point.

There, there. Have a lolly and go sit in the corner if it's bothering you that badly. It'll all be over soon enough.

VOTE BATISTA.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

I'm done with you, Coco. You've resorted to being childish at this point. You've been soundly thumped in this argument and it's reflecting in the voting here. And I just noticed Guy using the whole, 'Batista beat Flair twice argument.'

1) Flair was in his 50's at the time of those matches.
2) Batista was in peak condition.

So that doesn't reflect what a match during both of their primes would be like. Do what you want, voters. But when it all comes down to it, Ric Flair would beat Batista in this match.

 

[Coco]

I'm done with you, Coco.

I'm normally don't bother with emoticons, but I'll give it a try here.

....

You've resorted to being childish at this point.

Because "Flair only loses when his eye isn't on the prize, but when he wants it, he's undefeatable" is really an adult argument, right?

You've been soundly thumped in this argument and it's reflecting in the voting here.

You're ahead by one vote in a back and forth match. Soundly? Really?

Anyway, on to Guy's point. Which I didn't reproduce once and am not entirely sure I support.

Guy's point becomes interesting when you think about the level Flair was still booked at in his last run. While it's true that it wasn't his prime, Flair was still competing at a high level and experimenting with things he hadn't given the time of day before. Flair was having his first ladder matches (to the best of my knowledge) at this time, and even took a master of such affairs in Edge to the limit. He took the reigning world champion to the limit in his own match. Knock Guy all you want for using matches from 2005 against Flair, but there's something to be said for how much he had left to offer during that time. Heck, he was still slipping out with hotly competitive wins over Triple H and even beat Mick Foley in an I Quit match. Flair was game, whether you like it or not. And in that time, Batista beat him.

Not him prime, but Guy's point isn't worth ignoring entirely.

That said, there's already plenty of other reasons for people to...

VOTE BATISTA.

 

[PsychoBlack]

CoCo why do you change around what people have said it makes it seem like you know batista should lose so you dont want to go up against those arguments. you talk about flair losing all the time, well he was way past his prime then, during his final run in WCW he put people over to give credibility to their rising stars. during the 80s and early to mid 1990s flair rarely ever lost and as lariat pointed out he wrestled everynight for an hour at a time, he would find a way to get up before a 10 count before the horseman came out and fucked batista up. if they broke dusty rhodes leg in the middle of the ring they can find a way to keep batista down

 

[Coco]

CoCo why do you change around what people have said it makes it seem like you know batista should lose so you dont want to go up against those arguments.

I don't know what you're talking about.

See, I addressed it.

you talk about flair losing all the time, well he was way past his prime then, during his final run in WCW he put people over to give credibility to their rising stars. during the 80s and early to mid 1990s flair rarely ever lost and as lariat pointed out

That would be a great comeback if it wasn't for the fact that every loss I emphasized him taking occurred in the late 80s and early 90s. So it would appear that I did take this into account when asserting that Flair wasn't unbeatable at his peak.

he wrestled everynight for an hour at a time

I've covered this as well.

Batista handles his business in a timely manner because he can. Flair lacks the chops (no pun intended... really) to do the same.

if they broke dusty rhodes leg in the middle of the ring they can find a way to keep batista down

Batista >>>> Dusty.

Not to mention that Flair had to balance himself with a cage to get the momentum he needed to cause the break, if we're talking about the same example. It's not as though he'll have that at his disposal here. Not to mention that Batista is used to working through injuries and even won a WWE Championship coming into the match with an injury.

You're selling Dave short.

VOTE BATISTA.

 

[DrEwMcInTyRe503]

batista wins this won. he is to powerful. but my question is, is it flair and batista today or back when evolution was around?