Was Ric Flair's In-Ring Work Overrated?

[ndumelezi]

I havent posted in a while, and have very few times over all but someone criticizing flairs in ring work is insanity. You must never have watched the old nwa. You're talking about a guy that went 30-60-90 mins night after night. Could you imagine a 60 or 90 minute hogan match. He could'nt keep them entertained that long.

And people think hogans run is great but flair is what kept those "lesser" promotions going in those big vince mcmahon years. He sold out arenas without the hype machine!!
As for formulaic in flairs matches every hogan match you waited for the hulk up, block 2 punches, hit his opponent with 2 of his own shoot him off the ropes for the boot and legdrop. Need i say more!!

I thikn the only thing that excuses this kind of post is a lack of knowledge of history. Which can be understood not everyone has seen the glory days of nwa

 

[andy zones]

I've personally rarely been entertained by a Ric Flair match but I shall attempt to look at this from an unbias view.

In terms of his in ring ability, I feel he should not be mentioned as one of the all time greats. He could never properly tell a compelling story thanks to his lack of ring psychology. It just truly never made very much sense to me. How many times can you flop around and flip upside down on the turnbuckle before it gets stale, predictable and completely unnecessary? Ric Flair typically wrestled the exact same match every night for the majority of his career. He was a routine man and if you study his matches it stands out like a sore thumb.

Ric Flair had loads of charisma and was extremely reliable on the microphone but his persona was taken from Buddy Rogers, the majority of his title reigns were apart of minor promotions, and he was fortunate enough to have wrestled so many all time greats which gave him quite a bit of credibility. Ric Flair worked extremely hard and is arguably one of the most passionate wrestlers to have ever graced the squared circle which leads many to believe that he was the greatest of all time but fortunately he could not pull a quick one over me.

The nostalgia, title reigns and length of his career aside, I've always viewed Ric Flair as a charismatic, passionate performer, whose best years were far behind him and still far from incredible. Yes.....Ric Flair is overrated.

This is best thread that sums up this entire topic.

 

[wolvdog316]

Most of the people on these boards are either children or stupid. Some of you, and you know who you are, has at least SOME sense when it comes to this. First the "Is RKO, Jericho and Edge best heels ever" crap and this.

Define overrated. Did he carry several companies on his back, and territories? Check.

Did he MAKE a thousand different wrestlers? Check.

Did he wrestle more 30-45 minute marathons than anybody else? Check

Can he STILL have the crowd in the palm of his hand some 15 years after he probably should have retired? Check.

Can he still sell merchandise and put asses in seats. For the most part Check

Overrated my ass. That goes for Hogan also. These two men are #1 and #2. There is no debate. There is no "thread" discussing it. One man MADE big time wrestling, the other man CARRIED the rest.

And don't be weak and simple minded and throw out Flair had great people to work with shit. He had GREAT wrestlers to wrestle but they would'nt draw a dime on their own

Flair did it all. He wrestled Garvin at Starrcade, same Jobber Garvin who was in WWF. Was he great? Him and Dusty had fantastic matches together. Same Dusty in WWF that was a jobber and wore polka dots. Was he great?

How about Flair against Scott Steiner on TBS I believe? Flair against the Funks, Flair against the Briscoes, Flair against the Von Erichs. He was one of the best heels ever and a great face too.

Bret Hart IMO told a good story with his matches. Too bad nobody gave a shit. Flair could be facing Elmo, Gonzo and Big Bird and people would pay money to see it. And why? Cause Flair had "it"

Flair could brawl with Dusty, great fued. But when Steamboat entered everybody figured he would be out wrestled. And he showed up and they had a clinic. Flair is one the very FEW wrestlers that has EVER lived that could BEAT the face, and the face still came out 10x stronger than when he went in. He beat Magnum TA, but after that Magnum was a super face. He beat Sting, but Sting was now a super face.

Is Flair a good of a wrestler as Angle? Or Benoit? Or early Jericho, or even early Austin? Probably not. But Flair could work hard. He didn't try to do too much. He never tried to do a moonsault. Never tried to do a frankensteiner. Never tried to do a shooting star press. He did exactly what he could do and still look fantastic doing it.

And if we seriously look at the top wrestlers, break them down, they are all trick ponies.

Hogan. Foot, Elbow Drop, maybe a slam, leg drop

HHH. Punch, high knee, low knee, pedigree

Rock. Sloppy punches, gay kicks, sharpshooter, elbow, rock bottom

Austin. Lou Theiz Press, brawling, elbow off middle, stunner

Bottom line, Flair wrestled for years without a major break, everybody that he wrestled came out A LOT better than when they went in, and he made a lot of money for himself and others. That's not overrated.

 

[GameOver]

Most of the people on these boards are either children or stupid. Some of you, and you know who you are, has at least SOME sense when it comes to this. First the "Is RKO, Jericho and Edge best heels ever" crap and this.

Bottom line, Flair wrestled for years without a major break, everybody that he wrestled came out A LOT better than when they went in, and he made a lot of money for himself and others. That's not overrated.

Totally agree with the first part, whats with all these is this guy really that good crap etc. pointless polls in other words.

However to the question at hand, id' give Flair his props in his overall career and the help he's obviously given to younger stars which is something not every "Legend" was willing to do. And his phenomenal ability to keep getting back in the ring each night and wrestling for countless decades despite having suffered a broken back within the first yr of his wrestling career or very early on, i forget now.

But purely from a wrestling standpoint, there were far better technicians and charismatics in the business so for claims out there of him being the greatest wrestler of all time. MEH!!!! thats an overrated statement and purely subjective from person to person.

He is still a legend....

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Ric Flair ''put over'' so many younger wrestlers that it lost all meaning. He lost to everybody in the end. I think Kennedy & MVP were the only ones he beat in a 5 year period. It's also arguable that he put anybody over. Edge was already over, so was Khali, Kenny Dykstra didn't get over etc.

 

[JerryvonKramer]

Ric Flair ''put over'' so many younger wrestlers that it lost all meaning. He lost to everybody in the end. I think Kennedy & MVP were the only ones he beat in a 5 year period. It's also arguable that he put anybody over. Edge was already over, so was Khali, Kenny Dykstra didn't get over etc.

I'm sorry, who? Who was that? And WHO?

Come on please dude. You know when wolvdog316 is talking about putting people over and "making" them, he's talking about Sting, Luger, Steamboat, Magnum TA, Windham, Hennig, Garvin, the list goes on and on. Flair could elevate almost anyone to main event status. He was that good.

Can people please get a bit of sense and perspective here. This is getting silly now. I can understand the kids talking crap, but I thought Y2Jake was a proper fan. Stop being rubbish please. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to be just plain wrong.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Right, but that was the first half of his career. What about the second half? Are we not supposed to talk about how appalling he was for the second half? He was still wrestling so it should be up for fair evaluation. And a fair evaluation would be that he was a total embarrasment. Not onlt to himself, but to wrestling in general.

 

[JerryvonKramer]

Given that this is Old School Wrestling Discussion where a lot of us believe Wrestling died some time between the death of WCW and 2003, then, yes, I'd say his final years are irrelevant to the discussion.

Even that issue aside, it seems ridiculously harsh to judge a worker on the years in which he was past his prime. You judge someone on them at their absolute peak. Maradona is remembered as one of the greatest football players ever to have played the game from his peak years, not his drug-addled latter days. I've not watched the current product for a number of years, so I couldn't care less about his days with Evolution or whatever, but I hear he had some great matches against Vince, HBK and HHH in his final days -- is that not true then?

Also, you guys seem to forget he still had some GREAT matches in 95, 96, 97. He is one of the few guys who can come out of the debacle that was late WCW with any sort of pride, and with his head held high.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Given that this is Old School Wrestling Discussion where a lot of us believe Wrestling died some time between the death of WCW and 2003, then, yes, I'd say his final years are irrelevant to the discussion.

Good job that Ric Flair was wrestling badly from 1993-2003 then.

Even that issue aside, it seems ridiculously harsh to judge a worker on the years in which he was past his prime.

Not when that worker wrestles long past his prime.

You judge someone on them at their absolute peak.

You compare and contrast between their peak and the end of their career.

Maradona is remembered as one of the greatest football players ever to have played the game from his peak years, not his drug-addled latter days.

The general consensus is that Maradonna was a great footballer, but a fucking loser. Same thing kinda applies here.

I've not watched the current product for a number of years, so I couldn't care less about his days with Evolution or whatever, but I hear he had some great matches against Vince, HBK and HHH in his final days -- is that not true then?

No. They were good for Ric Flair matches. But the standard was very low by that point.

Also, you guys seem to forget he still had some GREAT matches in 95, 96, 97. He is one of the few guys who can come out of the debacle that was late WCW with any sort of pride, and with his head held high.

Not really. It took WWE hyping him up again for people to remember how good Flair was in his prime.

 

[JerryvonKramer]

Flair WAS still good after 1993 though.

Therse are rated *** or more by Scott Keith (this is taken from a list of individual wrestler's "best matches EVER", so it's not complete).

Antonio Inoki v. Ric Flair — WCW Collision in Korea 4/29/95

Arn Anderson v. Ric Flair — WCW Fall Brawl 1995

David Flair v. Ric Flair, Retirement — WCW Great American Bash 2000

Hulk Hogan v. Ric Flair, Cage — WCW Halloween Havoc 1994 (WCW Title

Then let's take some "match of the year" contenders, again from SK:

WCW SuperBrawl 1996 — Randy Savage v. Ric Flair, Cage (WCW Title, ****)

WCW Thunder 6/03/99 — Chris Benoit v. Ric Flair (****)

In SK's Best workers year-by-year, Flair is listed as number 1 for 1995.

This is just from not really looking or thinking that hard.

I maintain Flair was still able to wrestle ****+ matches until at least 1998. And ***+ matches until late late on.

Oh and don't like Scott Keith? Try Meltzer: http://www.geocities.com/mfoy18/wcwstarlist.html

Or Death Valley Driver: http://www.deathvalleydriver.com/Bestof90s/WCWresults.html

Do a screen search for "Flair" and count how many times his name comes up (this is not even counting 80s or his WWF run remember, just WCW from 93 on). ***+ with Vader, HOGAN, Sting, Steamboat, Douglas, Hart Savage, Jarrett, Piper, Anderson, Benoit -- all 93-2001. The greatest of all time. WOO!

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Who the fuck is Scott Keith, and why is he giving bullshit ratings to average matches?

Flair had several good matches throughout that 15 year period. But they were good in spite of him, not because of him. Bad wrestlers sometimes have good matches, thsi is a fact.

By the way, you missed off 9 years of the tail end of his career.

 

[RawIsRamsey]

Anyone even QUESTIONING Flair's ability needs to hang themselves. Right now. It's like someone asking "Was The Rock's promo ability overrated?" Fucking morons.

 

[RawIsRamsey]

Oh, and who gives a fuck about Scott Keith anymore? That IWC tard hasn't meant shit in eight years. Fuck him and the Smarks.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Anyone even QUESTIONING Flair's ability needs to hang themselves. Right now. It's like someone asking "Was The Rock's promo ability overrated?" Fucking morons.

Well, while we're at it. Yes. He said the same thing every week. That's like me remembering a line and being able to recite it each week.

Flair also lost his promo ability before he retired as well. He became a mumbling, slurring fool.

Flair is overrated, this thread shows that.

 

[JerryvonKramer]

Oh, and who gives a fuck about Scott Keith anymore? That IWC tard hasn't meant shit in eight years. Fuck him and the Smarks.

I did stick in Meltzer and Death Valley Driver in case anyone thought it was just a quirk of Scott Keith. Are you telling me you know more about wrestling than any of those three sources?

Point is, Y2Jake was trying to say Flair went shit after 1993 which is OBVIOUSLY not the case.

If he'd have dropped dead in 1993 after his WWF he'd be still be remembered as the greatest of all time, hell, he could have retired in 1991 and he'd STILL be remembered as the greatest of all time. I don't think you guys understand what it takes to wrestle Luger to a ****+ match, let alone do it several times. This is not to mention the well-documented matches with Windham, Steamboat, Funk, Sting etc. etc. etc. But the fact is, he was great all the way up until the end of WCW, despite a load of booking bullshit and an atmosphere of massive egos of people who wouldn't job.

Bad wrestlers sometimes have good matches, thsi is a fact.

But do they OFTEN have good matches? I've just directed you to about 25 very good Flair matches from 1993-2001. Note some of these opponents: VADER (stiff), Hogan (HOGAN FFS), Piper (old mustached Piper!). Who's carrying those matches? Stick him in there with Savage, Benoit, Hart, Anderson or anyone else who is a good worker and you've got yourself an instant **** match. Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself here. Either you haven't seen these matches I'm talking about and you're basing your opinion entirely on hear-say and the bullshit "last 8 years" or

"Fucking morons" is right.

 

[MattMoses]

Bret Hart said it best when he said that Flair's matches were 30 minutes of non-stop non-psychology.

It's all fine and dandy quoting a wrestler, but how about you actually walk us through one of his more highly-praised matches, and explain how Flair uses no psychology whatsoever. I'd apreciate it.

There was just never any flow or logic to his matches.

Ah, logic. Who the fuck cares? What was the logic behind Curt Hennig regularly working the legs of his opponents in his matches? Why does Triple H use abdominal stretches in his matches? It's nonsensical to use this move, because it serves no purpose to leading up to the pedigree, which is nothing more than a facebuster, right?

Ric would work the legs of his opponents regularly during matches. Isn't that logical? Yes, it is. People would get bored if all Flair did was use seventeen variations of leg locks and stomps to the leg. But please, explain how in a world of scripted entertainment, logic is a determining factor as to deciding the quality of a performer.

The supposed classic matches he had with Steamboat are some of the most overrated matches ever.

Why? Not enough logical transitions between moves?

I did stick in Meltzer and Death Valley Driver in case anyone thought it was just a quirk of Scott Keith. Are you telling me you know more about wrestling than any of those three sources?

And why should Dave Meltzer's of Scott Keith's objective opinion on a match matter to people like myself and Jake?

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Are you telling me you know more about wrestling than any of those three sources?

Yes. It's opinion not fact.

Point is, Y2Jake was trying to say Flair went shit after 1993 which is OBVIOUSLY not the case.

But you said you haven't watched any wrestling recently, so your opinion isn't really valid.

If he'd have dropped dead in 1993 after his WWF he'd be still be remembered as the greatest of all time, hell, he could have retired in 1991 and he'd STILL be remembered as the greatest of all time.

Yes, but he didn't. He carried on and got worse every time he stepped in the the ring.

I don't think you guys understand what it takes to wrestle Luger to a ****+ match, let alone do it several times. This is not to mention the well-documented matches with Windham, Steamboat, Funk, Sting etc. etc. etc.

I'm certain I said he was talented up to a certain point, that certain point being 1993 if I remember correctly.

But the fact is, he was great all the way up until the end of WCW, despite a load of booking bullshit and an atmosphere of massive egos of people who wouldn't job.

No he wasn't. Were you not watching WCW in 2001?

But do they OFTEN have good matches?

You listed some very average matches as far as I'm concerned. No memorable ones either.

I've just directed you to about 25 very good Flair matches from 1993-2001.

About a dozen, actually.

Note some of these opponents: VADER (stiff), Hogan (HOGAN FFS), Piper (old mustached Piper!).

Agin, most of those were from when he was atalented worker.

Who's carrying those matches? Stick him in there with Savage, Benoit, Hart, Anderson or anyone else who is a good worker and you've got yourself an instant **** match.

Who's carrying a 50 year old wrestler? My guess is Benoit in any matches they had together. The Bret Hart matches were nothing special. 4 stars is pure bullshit.

Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself here. Either you haven't seen these matches I'm talking about and you're basing your opinion entirely on hear-say and the bullshit "last 8 years" or

I'm basing my opinion on the last 15 years of his career. You've listed a load of matches that I and everyone else has forgotten. If they're so great then why didn't WWE put more of them onto the two three disc sets they've put out on him?

"Fucking morons" is right.

 

[JerryvonKramer]

First of all, I'm not sure if Meltzer ratings or Scott Keith's ratings do matter, they are just a handy short-hand way of pointing out some decent matches. If nothing else, those guys don't dish out ***+ lightly.

Yes, yes, it's all "opinion not fact", but let's say we were trying to assess, I dunno, Hitler's invasion of Poland or something -- whose opinion would you trust more? A 17 year old's or a Professor of History's? SK and Meltzer might not be "professors of wrestling", but they do know quite a lot. More, at any rate, than most of the posters here. To me, those guys seem to understand wrestling, ring psychology and all the rest of it pretty well, as Keith always says, "it's all in the subtle details".

And why aren't the matches I mentioned on DVD yet? (I think the Anderson one is actually, on the 4 Horsemen set) Simple really, WWE have to put out the absolute classic stuff first before they can think about forgotten gems like Flair vs. Rude circa 93 or Flair vs. Vader -- not that important in the overall scheme of things but good matches nonetheless.

Also, let's not forget the environment Flair was working in from 1996 onwards. I mean Bischoff hated his guts and he was off tv for long periods during that time. He still brought it when it counted. No classics but some pretty decent matches for WCW at that time. Better than Finger Poke of Doom anyway.

Quite fun arguing about this with a guy who has Bulldog as his avatar and a big "Vote Beefcake" sig I assume you're being tongue-in-cheek there Jake

 

[Y 2 Jake]

First of all, I'm not sure if Meltzer ratings or Scott Keith's ratings do matter, they are just a handy short-hand way of pointing out some decent matches. If nothing else, those guys don't dish out ***+ lightly.

Yes, yes, it's all "opinion not fact", but let's say we were trying to assess, I dunno, Hitler's invasion of Poland or something -- whose opinion would you trust more? A 17 year old's or a Professor of History's? SK and Meltzer might not be "professors of wrestling", but they do know quite a lot. More, at any rate, than most of the posters here. To me, those guys seem to understand wrestling, ring psychology and all the rest of it pretty well, as Keith always says, "it's all in the subtle details".

You can't interpret an invasion of Poland in the same way. It happened, it's fact. Ric Flair vs. Shawn Michaels is a classic to some, pile of shit to others.

And why aren't the matches I mentioned on DVD yet? (I think the Anderson one is actually, on the 4 Horsemen set) Simple really, WWE have to put out the absolute classic stuff first before they can think about forgotten gems like Flair vs. Rude circa 93 or Flair vs. Vader -- not that important in the overall scheme of things but good matches nonetheless.

They don't put them one because there's no real demand for them. I'm a huge Rick Rude mark. But I never expect a DVD on him because really, in the scheme of things, he's a nobody.

Also, let's not forget the environment Flair was working in from 1996 onwards. I mean Bischoff hated his guts and he was off tv for long periods during that time. He still brought it when it counted. No classics but some pretty decent matches for WCW at that time. Better than Finger Poke of Doom anyway.

But you'll agree that the quality of his matches weren't the same as that of 10 or twenty years ago, right?

Quite fun arguing about this with a guy who has Bulldog as his avatar and a big "Vote Beefcake" sig I assume you're being tongue-in-cheek there Jake

Firmly and always.

 

[DC24]

One simple word yes; I personally think he's a fucking bum if you ask me he's done the same boring shit over the last 22 years that I've been watching wrestling. I do respect what he has done for wrestling but I never or will never be a Ric Flair fan I would rather watch Doink the clown vs Jerry Lawler personally LOL.

 

[JerryvonKramer]

But you'll agree that the quality of his matches weren't the same as that of 10 or twenty years ago, right?

Oh yeah, granted, his best matches by far were in the 80s and early 90s. But he still "had it" enough to put on a good match in the mid-90s.

If you're suffer another of my football analogies, it's like Zidane -- he wasn't the OMFG WORLD WORLD Class player he was in 2006, but he still had enough in his locker to light up the 2006 World Cup.

I see Flair in that mould for most of his second WCW run.

Then (if you'll suffer even more football analogies), in his second WWF/E run, he was a bit like post-35 year old Paolo Maldini, still solid enough but trading more on his former glories and legendary status than anything else. Could still put in a decent performance but nothing like being one of the world's best as he once was.

Now, regardless of the fact Maldini played on probably a season or three too long, is he still one of the greatest of all time? Of course.

I know wrestling is entertainment and all that, but the analogy still stands.

Anyway -- Matt Moses has posed some interesting and valid questions to the Flair doubters, and until they've been answered in full, there's nothing else for me to say.

 

[RawIsRamsey]

You know, if we're going to use Flair as the barometer for superstars who wrestled well past their prime, what about soon-to-be HoF'er Terry Funk? The old bastard STILL wrestles and is several years Flair's senior. No, Funk can't go like he used to against (here we go) Flair in the late 80's, hell, he can't even go like he could in mid-90's ECW, but overrated? Hell no. Just because ability is lost due to age (and c'mon, no one can be the best forever) doesn't negate what they have done. Flair, during his prime, was the best wrestler in the world, period. He could talk, he could draw, he could wrestle. I've always wondered how big the Horsemen would have gotten if they all had jumped over to Vince.

But the fact is that calling Flair overrated is rediculous. First off, it's opinion. People will think what they will about workers (personally, I think the most overrated worker is Bret Hart) and that's fine. We need to get over that. Secondly, no matter how many facts you bust out, no matter how many "experts" give their opinion on a match, it's not going to change the perception. If 98% of the wrestling world says Flair vs. Steamboat at WrestleWar is the greatest match of all time, then dammit, it is. But people can still have an opinion as to what other match may be the greatest. So yes, make your points as to why you think Flair is overrated, but please back it up...don't just throw out match ratings and what year he wrestled and how old he was.

The fact is I've been entertained by the Nature Boy since I was three years old, and that's what makes him, at least to me, the Greatest of All Time...he's the reason I love professional wrestling and began watching it, and he's entertained me every year since.

 

[Queers and Steers]

You know, if we're going to use Flair as the barometer for superstars who wrestled well past their prime, what about soon-to-be HoF'er Terry Funk? The old bastard STILL wrestles and is several years Flair's senior. No, Funk can't go like he used to against (here we go) Flair in the late 80's, hell, he can't even go like he could in mid-90's ECW, but overrated? Hell no. Just because ability is lost due to age (and c'mon, no one can be the best forever) doesn't negate what they have done. Flair, during his prime, was the best wrestler in the world, period. He could talk, he could draw, he could wrestle. I've always wondered how big the Horsemen would have gotten if they all had jumped over to Vince.

But the fact is that calling Flair overrated is rediculous. First off, it's opinion. People will think what they will about workers (personally, I think the most overrated worker is Bret Hart) and that's fine. We need to get over that. Secondly, no matter how many facts you bust out, no matter how many "experts" give their opinion on a match, it's not going to change the perception. If 98% of the wrestling world says Flair vs. Steamboat at WrestleWar is the greatest match of all time, then dammit, it is. But people can still have an opinion as to what other match may be the greatest. So yes, make your points as to why you think Flair is overrated, but please back it up...don't just throw out match ratings and what year he wrestled and how old he was.

The fact is I've been entertained by the Nature Boy since I was three years old, and that's what makes him, at least to me, the Greatest of All Time...he's the reason I love professional wrestling and began watching it, and he's entertained me every year since.

damn i agree with basically evetything you said1 i also love and respect flair i have his dvds and to be honeest if it wasnt for flair i wouldnt be watching wrestling, because i got into it because of hbk who got into because of flaire, thanks nat

 

[MrPlatano1989]

I havent gotten the chance to read every post, but heres my 2 cents real quick, I'll read more after work.. well look guys, of coarse he's no AJ Styles in the ring, but people have to remember he has a 30+ year career in the books, if anyone is going to judge his ring skills, try to find matches when he was young and in his prime when it comes to his in-ring skills, me personally cant give an opinion just yet, I havent seen a 100 Flair matches, but just keep that thought in mind guys

 

[sirveaux]

Allow me to paraphrase a much better writer than myself:

"Sometimes there's a man... I won't say a hero, 'cause what's a hero? But sometimes, there's a man – and I'm talkin' about Flair here – sometimes, there's a man, well, he's the man for his time and place. He fits right in there. And that's Ric Flair. In the 1980s territorial system of wrestling."

Although I've never been a Flair fan, as I'm really too young (at 25) to have seen or have appreciated what I was seeing during Flair's early career, I will kinda defend him.

Flair really did fit the system he was in during the NWA days, where the Champ had to make sure everyone from Harley Race (not a slam on the King of Wrestling, just the first big name to spring to mind) to some jackass in a local NWA promtion in West Buttfuck, Indiana look good. That's what Flair's style was geared towards, and that's what he did as well as anyone, if not better. Yeah, a lot of his matches are similar, but he had to have a style he could use against literally anyone that ever stepped in the ring.

True, I don't feel that Flair's style aged particularly well once the business moved on to what it became in the 90s, but Flair should be respected for what he was able to accomplish, especially facing the Juggernaut WWF was becoming.

And on a side note, I think many of the post-1993 matches that have been lauded here were rated so highly, at least in part, by the marquee value of Flair's (and sometimes his opponent's) name. Kinda like when a college football prospect's rating tends to go up when he signs with Notre Dame or another big name school. Same kinda thing