An interesting article on Ric Flair

[Mr. Nerfect]

This is a column I read on 411mania.com. I won't post it, because I don't want to steal this guy's work, but it's certainly an interesting read:

http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/columns/69878/Shining-a-Spotlight-2.28.08:-The-Dark-Side-of-Flair.htm

Do you agree? Disagree?

[Pardeep 619]

The guy has a point to an extent. Flair may have done a lot of things the guy mentioned in the article, but at the same time he drew a lot of money. However there are a lot of flaws in what the guy says.

"So after getting his "neck broken" by Funk, Flair sits out for three months. By the rules, he should have been stripped of the belt for not being able to defend it in 30 days but was kept as champion, a break of the rules never explained."

My assumption from this is that he believes that Ric Flair politicked to keep the strap when he didn't wrestle for 3 months, even though the guy wasn't legitimately injured... considering it was just an angle, why would he have to drop the strap if he wasn't injured?? The 30 days rule is hardly an amendment and always gets ignored unless a wrestler is legimately injured and is out for quite some time.

"When he did come back, he and Funk went at it in wild and amazing brawls which were good but had the same problem as the Steamboat matches. Even more than Steamboat, Funk was never a main event guy. Yes, he'd been NWA champion in the 1970's but that was before the rise of national TV. He wasn't going to win the title, he was just there to make Flair look good."

So not being on national TV means Funk was never a main event guy? The NWA Title was arguably at it's stongest (in terms of legitimacy) pre 1984. Maybe in the eyes of the newer fans Funk wasn't a main event guy, but the program didn't do too badly IIRC.

It is an interesting article, and it's a side of Ric Flair which nobody seems to mention, but I disagree with the whole Flair may not be deserving of his status as a legend. Overall the guy has been an absolute credit to this business and his passion for it is quite possibly second to none.

[wwe2222]

He complains about not putting guys ever, and admits to being a Ricky Steamboat mark. Yet when Steamboat is put over, he says Steamboat was never a main event guy anyway.

Just because titles dont change hands, or guys dont give rubs every match, or refuse to lose, it isnt always a bad thing. Sometimes it has made for much better TV to see them hold on to the belt. They had to sell TV time. This isnt a bunch of carnies traveling around the country in different territories. These matches are on tv and you had to sell those ratings.

And his status as a legend shouldnt be questioned...look how many guys respect him and praise him that are in the business.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I don't think he's questioning his status as a legend, per se. I think the columnist is just trying to question that image a lot of people have of Flair being perfect, good for business, and unquestionable in his approach to the industry.

[Mr. Nerfect]

He complains about not putting guys ever, and admits to being a Ricky Steamboat mark. Yet when Steamboat is put over, he says Steamboat was never a main event guy anyway.

Just because titles dont change hands, or guys dont give rubs every match, or refuse to lose, it isnt always a bad thing. Sometimes it has made for much better TV to see them hold on to the belt. They had to sell TV time. This isnt a bunch of carnies traveling around the country in different territories. These matches are on tv and you had to sell those ratings.

I think his Steamboat comment was more to retain credibility than anything. I inferred his point as "Steamboat was not a sensation like Hulk Hogan, but he could have been put over more as a face challenger."

As far as title changes go, I'm on the fence about it. Sometimes long reigns work, but they're not automatically good. The writer's point was that Flair always holding onto the belt was not good for business, as people really wanted to see Lex Luger, Terry Funk or Ricky Steamboat (as examples) unseat Flair, even if they didn't have a long reign.

I think it's a good critical look at Flair's career. People often overlook the politics Flair must have played, and the selfish drive that one really needs to be as successful as him. A great wrestler does not necessarily an altruistic one.

[Destor]

I think he tries to paint a picture of Flair being bad for buisness, but he only manages to prove that he was great for buisness.

PS- Every wrestler has used politics to his advantage. Period. End of discussion. Dont try and debate it. Move on.