TPWW Forums - View Single Post

**Darc** · 07-27-2009, 01:25 AM

I like them both too, its a shame that their pride and egos won't allow them to get past this stupid war of words. I think Bret was a better wrestler, but Flair has had a more impressive career and is a better worker in certain aspects. Bret Hart is one of the best storytellers we've ever seen. Some might call his style boring, but that is because he used a more realistic style and was not afraid to apply a subtle element to further the story in the match. He's certainly had some amazing matches with some of the best of his era. Who knows how much more he would have had for us if not for Goldberg's career ending kick?

As I mentioned, Ric Flair has had a more impressive career. He's also had some classic matches with the best of his era and some good ones with stars one or two generations after. I can't buy into the statement that Ric Flair was never a draw. Why would he have been champ so many times if he was never a draw? Why would Vince have brought him into the WWF if he was never a draw? Why is the robe that he wore to Wrestlemania XXIV in the Smithsonian Institute if he was never a draw? Why are marks dropping upwards of $150 dollars for his autograph if he was never a draw? Ric Flair is an institution. He may have never had the instant mainstream appeal of Hulk Hogan, but his main focus was the wrestling business rather than the entertainment business and his staying power eventually established him as a flagship of the business, despite lacking the McMahon media juggernaut. While Bret was a better overall worker, Flair has the edge in the aspect making his opponents look good and being able to have a good match with anyone. Bret could have a good match with most people, but not everyone, he did know how to make his opponents look good when he could though. Flair, unlike Bret, has made a lot of careers by trying to help the young guys succeed. Steamboat, Sting, Barry Whindam and Bret Hart to name a few. Both men used a certain style where certain moves were expected, once you've seen enough of their work, so anyone who lacked respect for their genuine abilities would call them boring. Flair worked the way he did because he was wrestling in front of a crowd for an hour 6 days a week and this was before internet and cable, so no one going to notice if they thought Flair did to many chops in a match. Bret Hart had to be able to produce a decent match in 10-15 minutes and used the moves the crowd knew him for, as do all WWE employees. Today's spoiled internet smarks might not like either one of these guys if they came out today.

Ric Flair is one of the my favorite wrestlers of all time and Bret Hart is one that I consider to be great in his own right. Its a shame that Bret will come right back to fire shots at Flair and they'll go back and forth on radio shows for a couple weeks and then people will stop paying attention. Both men are better than that and should learn to respect each other and their accomplishments.

07-27-2009, 01:25 AM	#90
Darc Junior Member Posts: 41	I like them both too, its a shame that their pride and egos won't allow them to get past this stupid war of words. I think Bret was a better wrestler, but Flair has had a more impressive career and is a better worker in certain aspects. Bret Hart is one of the best storytellers we've ever seen. Some might call his style boring, but that is because he used a more realistic style and was not afraid to apply a subtle element to further the story in the match. He's certainly had some amazing matches with some of the best of his era. Who knows how much more he would have had for us if not for Goldberg's career ending kick? As I mentioned, Ric Flair has had a more impressive career. He's also had some classic matches with the best of his era and some good ones with stars one or two generations after. I can't buy into the statement that Ric Flair was never a draw. Why would he have been champ so many times if he was never a draw? Why would Vince have brought him into the WWF if he was never a draw? Why is the robe that he wore to Wrestlemania XXIV in the Smithsonian Institute if he was never a draw? Why are marks dropping upwards of $150 dollars for his autograph if he was never a draw? Ric Flair is an institution. He may have never had the instant mainstream appeal of Hulk Hogan, but his main focus was the wrestling business rather than the entertainment business and his staying power eventually established him as a flagship of the business, despite lacking the McMahon media juggernaut. While Bret was a better overall worker, Flair has the edge in the aspect making his opponents look good and being able to have a good match with anyone. Bret could have a good match with most people, but not everyone, he did know how to make his opponents look good when he could though. Flair, unlike Bret, has made a lot of careers by trying to help the young guys succeed. Steamboat, Sting, Barry Whindam and Bret Hart to name a few. Both men used a certain style where certain moves were expected, once you've seen enough of their work, so anyone who lacked respect for their genuine abilities would call them boring. Flair worked the way he did because he was wrestling in front of a crowd for an hour 6 days a week and this was before internet and cable, so no one going to notice if they thought Flair did to many chops in a match. Bret Hart had to be able to produce a decent match in 10-15 minutes and used the moves the crowd knew him for, as do all WWE employees. Today's spoiled internet smarks might not like either one of these guys if they came out today. Ric Flair is one of the my favorite wrestlers of all time and Bret Hart is one that I consider to be great in his own right. Its a shame that Bret will come right back to fire shots at Flair and they'll go back and forth on radio shows for a couple weeks and then people will stop paying attention. Both men are better than that and should learn to respect each other and their accomplishments.