What makes Flair 'the man'?

[PureHatred]

It's two decades plus of being able to put on incredible matches whether the opponent was an extraordinary worker (Steamboat, Savage) a straight up brawler (Rhodes, Funk) or a steaming pile of crap (Luger, Garvin).

It's the fact that Ric Flair wasn't a big, buff guy with a great look but through his ringwork, his charisma, and his mic skills he still made himself one of the biggest names in the history of the business.

If there was a Mt. Rushmore of Wrestling, Ric Flair would be on it.

PS...it's a predetermined sport. Titles are meaningless unless asa relative measure of who is the most marketable at any given time.

[Wildcat789]

Originally Posted by PureHatred It's two decades plus of being able to put on incredible matches whether the opponent was an extraordinary worker (Steamboat, Savage) a straight up brawler (Rhodes, Funk) or a steaming pile of crap (Luger, Garvin). It's the fact that Ric Flair wasn't a big, buff guy with a great look but through his ringwork, his charisma, and his mic skills he still made himself one of the biggest names in the history of the business. If there was a Mt. Rushmore of Wrestling, Ric Flair would be on it. PS...it's a predetermined sport. Titles are meaningless unless asa relative measure of who is the most marketable at any given time.

That couldn't have been said any better. TY for that post lol.

[ColdwaVer]

Originally Posted by PureHatred PS...it's a predetermined sport. Titles are meaningless unless asa relative measure of who is the most marketable at any given time.

I wouldn't call them entirely meaningless, what you have to look at is the fact that through Flairs' many reigns, the fans continued to flock to him. Ability to draw as a champion isn't a predetermined factor, and the fact that the majority of Flair's runs were successes (or at least not total duds) is indicative of something. Ask yourself: when has Flair ever really dropped the ball?

[PureHatred]

Originally Posted by ColdwaVer I wouldn't call them entirely meaningless, what you have to look at is the fact that through Flairs' many reigns, the fans continued to flock to him. Ability to draw as a champion isn't a predetermined factor, and the fact that the majority of Flair's runs were successes (or at least not total duds) is indicative of something. Ask yourself: when has Flair ever really dropped the ball?

Did you read what I wrote? They are meaningles except as a means of measuring who is marketable; i.e. drawing power. Thanks for vigorously agreeing with me.