Where would you rate Ric Flair all time?

The 16 time world champion. Dynamite on the stick both as a face or heel. The 60 minute man. Was he a superb technician or overated in the ring. Has the fact he's still competing well after his 60th birthday tarnishing his legacy?

Top 10 no question. In his day, I'd have said number 1, but I think staying in the biz as long as he has has damaged his reputation. Also, I think there were bigger draws, and better wrestlers, but very few are/were as good as Flair all round.

The arguement against Flair is that if you've seen one of his matches you've seen them all as far as his broadways are concerned, I've never been his biggest fan to be honest, by the time I saw his peak years I'd already saw him in the WWF and what I believed was already well past it in WCW in the mid 90s so he was already tainted perhaps.

He wouldn't make my personal top 10 and looking at it objectively I still struggle to put him in my top 10

How big a draw was Flair during his peak years?

Never really got Flair. Was he past his best when I started watching professional wrestling in the late 80s? Possibly, but as gaffer says he matches were much the same and I got bored of him pretty quick. Most of his stand out moments for me, were on the mic.

Hero wrote:How big a draw was Flair during his peak years?

It's hard to tell but back in the NWA days when it was a vote he kept being voted in as champ so the other promoters must have believed there was good value on him holding the belt and touring their territory

On the flip side many believe it was mainly political, if Promoter A votes for Flair then the next time he's to drop the title Promoter A's main guy would be next in line.

Still, it wasn't so much about ratings in those days as it where mainly local but how many asses where put on seats and from that sense, when Flair came to town it was usually jammed, however, he was bringing the world title with him though and that alone was a major draw since it wasn't on show often so in that sense who the World Champion was is kinda irrelevant as fans would flock to see their top guy face the World Champion for the title

Still, there must be a reason why he was continually choosen to be the top man

When people say most of Flairs matches were the same I think he was from the era before cable television where you could get away with having the same match in one territory & then exactly the same in the next because there was no exposure to a national audience.

How big a draw was he? Great question Hero.... If you ask an NWA stalwart I'm sure they'll say the biggest ask Bret Hart & he'll tell you he couldn't draw a dime

That's true Brady, it wasn't really a negative against Flair when I say he had the same matches just that witnout national TV it was possibly slightly easier for him because he could have the same matches, it still happens today in the WWE, at houses guys have the same matches night after night, they get away with it because it's not on TV and it's a different city

I just feel that if we give credit for him being the 60 minute man, which is some achievment in itself, we should also note that it was a well worked perfected routine for 60 minutes

I'd have to vote Top 20, im sure i could justify picking 10 people who i rate higher than him. Off the top of my head i'd say Hogan, HBK, Austin, Rock, Angle, Hart, Savage, Taker, HHH, Foley, Sting and maybe even Jericho could all have a case of being rated above Ric Flair.

This might not sit well, but i think Flair lacks true star power. If you think of the potential 'dream box office' fantasy matches you'd probably think of:

Hogan v Austin
HBK v Rock
Taker v Sting
Angle v Hart
Savage v HBK

etc etc.

You can imagine all of them matches headlining a Wrestlemania and drawing huge buyrates.

Flair v Austin
Flair v Taker
Flair v Hart
Flair v Angle
Flair v Rock

Its not quite the same, is it?

Mr H wrote:I'd have to vote Top 20, im sure i could justify picking 10 people who i rate higher than him. Off the top of my head i'd say Hogan, HBK, Austin, Rock, Angle, Hart, Savage, Taker, HHH, Foley, Sting and maybe even Jericho could all have a case of being rated above Ric Flair.

Angle could have shot beyond Flair, but he peed his own career away, HHH is a poor man's Flair, Foley (are you having a laugh?), Sting owes his career to Flair and Jericho never had the impact, influence and drawing ability of Flair.

I was doing a gaffer and looking at it objectively, some would argue that all of them guys could have a case to be rated above Flair. I'd definately rate Hogan, HBK, Austin, Rock, Angle, Hart, Savage and Taker above him so thats a definate 8 who beat him in my list. Flair would be in a bracket with HHH, Sting, Foley and Warrior for me, i'd have to analyse harder to decide which of them 5 would fill my last 2 spots in the Top 10.

I was probably wrong about Jericho, he's Top 20 but wouldnt threaten Top 10. I dont think HHH is a poor man's Flair though.

He's in tier 3 or 4 of my rankings...

Hogan, Austin, Rock,

HBK, Hart, Savage, Taker

Angle, Sting, HHH... Then maybe Flair

I'd say he was better than Foley but not Triple H

Following on from Hero's question, how big a draw was Flair when he was WWF and WCW champ?

liverbnz wrote:Following on from Hero's question, how big a draw was Flair when he was WWF and WCW champ?

It's hard to tell when he was in the WWF because during his first reign as Champion he was mainly on the same card as Hogan and Savage, it's pretty hard to tell who people where going to see

In late 91 though Vince booked Hogan/Flair matches all over America as a battle of the real World Champions, they didn't draw as expected though and weren't well received, one of the main reasons it wasn't put on TV/PPV

As for his second run, he barely had it long enough to truly know, he was a transitional champ to get it onto Hart who Vince had a boner for after Wembley

You'd be best asking Crips about his WCW run, I'm not too clued up on that

I just looked this up:

In his two title reigns, Flair held the title for a total of 118 days.

Savage had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 520 days.

Yokozuna had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 280 days.

Sheamus has had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 161 days.

Alberto Del Rio has had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 84 days.

This is my favourite - Diesel had 1 reign and held the WWF Title for 358 days and he's viewed as one of the worst drawing champions of all time!

It doesnt look good for Flair really does it!

To be fair he was never going to be a long term champion, particularly as a heel and heading into WrestleMania, particularly the angle Flair had going heading into WrestleMania, remember at this point no heel had ever walked out of Mania with the title, Vince was never going to allow an NWA guy that honour.

In hindsight though, it would have been better for Flair to get out of WrestleMania VIII as champion, and have Flair then move onto a feud with the returning Ultimate Warrior at SummerSlam instead of Savage/Warrior (which was a great match) but tore the crowd apart, Savage combatting Perfect would have made for good viewing

Mr H wrote:I just looked this up:

In his two title reigns, Flair held the title for a total of 118 days.

Savage had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 520 days.

Yokozuna had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 280 days.

Sheamus has had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 161 days.

Alberto Del Rio has had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 84 days.

This is my favourite - Diesel had 1 reign and held the WWF Title for 358 days and he's viewed as one of the worst drawing champions of all time!

It doesnt look good for Flair really does it!

Since when does that mean anything, Rock was WWF/E champion 7 times and his combined days don't even break the 300 mark.

Flair's legacy being completely underplayed is a new one for me, most message boards I've ever visited are usually unanimous in that he comes after only Hogan, Austin and Rock in the modern era. While I'd argue that HBK, Undertaker and Cena have definitely surpassed him, he is at worst on the same level as Bret Hart or Randy Savage.

To be honest gaffer i think Flair/Warrior may have fallen even flatter than Savage/Warrior did. All the crowd wanted was Bulldog/Hart, anything else wasnt going to touch it.

Imagine if that did happen though and Warrior took the title off Flair at Summerslam and how that would have changed the landscape of what actually went on to happen. Would Bret Hart still have been pushed into the main event and fueded with Warrior? Would have been a good card - Savage/Perfect, Warrior/Flair, Bulldog/Hart.

Don Caboose wrote:

Mr H wrote:I just looked this up:

In his two title reigns, Flair held the title for a total of 118 days.

Savage had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 520 days.

Yokozuna had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 280 days.

Sheamus has had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 161 days.

Alberto Del Rio has had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 84 days.

This is my favourite - Diesel had 1 reign and held the WWF Title for 358 days and he's viewed as one of the worst drawing champions of all time!

It doesnt look good for Flair really does it!

Since when does that mean anything, Rock was WWF/E champion 7 times and his combined days don't even break the 300 mark.

Flair's legacy being completely underplayed is a new one for me, most message boards I've ever visited are usually unanimous in that he comes after only Hogan, Austin and Rock in the modern era. While I'd argue that HBK, Undertaker and Cena have definitely surpassed him, he is at worst on the same level as Bret Hart or Randy Savage.

It means that any younger fans who didnt know much about wrestling in the early 90s would look at that and immediately think the WWF didnt have much faith in Ric Flair being the top guy in the company. The fact that Flair/Savage at Mania 8 was the first time the WWF Title wasnt the Main Event at Wrestlemania tells its own story, they opted for Hogan vs the guy who cost him the Royal Rumble - Sid, and the Warrior return.

The Rock is a different kettle of fish, he didnt need the strap to be over, especially as a face. Same as HBK. Im by no means knocking Flair's legacy but for me i thin Flair without the WWF Title wasnt seen as a major draw. Hart and Savage will be miles ahead of him on most people's all time lists.

Mr H wrote:

Don Caboose wrote:

Mr H wrote:I just looked this up:

In his two title reigns, Flair held the title for a total of 118 days.

Savage had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 520 days.

Yokozuna had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 280 days.

Sheamus has had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 161 days.

Alberto Del Rio has had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 84 days.

This is my favourite - Diesel had 1 reign and held the WWF Title for 358 days and he's viewed as one of the worst drawing champions of all time!

It doesnt look good for Flair really does it!

Since when does that mean anything, Rock was WWF/E champion 7 times and his combined days don't even break the 300 mark.

Flair's legacy being completely underplayed is a new one for me, most message boards I've ever visited are usually unanimous in that he comes after only Hogan, Austin and Rock in the modern era. While I'd argue that HBK, Undertaker and Cena have definitely surpassed him, he is at worst on the same level as Bret Hart or Randy Savage.

It means that any younger fans who didnt know much about wrestling in the early 90s would look at that and immediately think the WWF didnt have much faith in Ric Flair being the top guy in the company. The fact that Flair/Savage at Mania 8 was the first time the WWF Title wasnt the Main Event at Wrestlemania tells its own story, they opted for Hogan vs the guy who cost him the Royal Rumble - Sid, and the Warrior return.

The Rock is a different kettle of fish, he didnt need the strap to be over, especially as a face. Same as HBK. Im by no means knocking Flair's legacy but for me i thin Flair without the WWF Title wasnt seen as a major draw. Hart and Savage will be miles ahead of him on most people's all time lists.

I can see your point but I think that has more to do with the NWA being off the radar and WCW being dead rather than Hart or Savage surpassing Flair. Unfortunately for Flair most of his best work (outside of the WWF/E) will be lost after effectively peeing all over the wonderful retirement the WWE gave him. Sting's true legacy is similarly on ice until he gets involved in the WWE.

Flair also drew in a way that 99% of modern wrestlers don't, on his own.

Modern wrestlers unless named Rock, Cena or Undertaker draw as part of the WWE brand. Just like kids have a preference for which Turtle they liked or which X-Man is their favourite, the TMNT and X-Men franchises themselves are what people spend money on. Flair drew as the man everyone wanted to see get his ass kicked, and not in the Honkytonk Man way. People paid to see Flair escape by the skin of his teeth in a classic.

On a side note, WM8 was more about Hogan being the top draw alongside Warrior's return than a slight on Flair as defending World Champion. Just like at WM11 the draw was Lawrence Taylor's wrestling debut not the Diesel-HBK match.

I agree and i dont. You cant say that Flair drew on his own when he was given number 3 in the Royal Rumble and went on to win it together with being given Bobby Heenan to promote the hell out of him for the whole match. If he entered at 25 and Heenan wasnt on commentary i dont think it would have had the same impact, ultimately i'd argue that it was the WWF giving Flair huge exposure in the Rumble in order for him to draw.

Mr H wrote:I agree and i dont. You cant say that Flair drew on his own when he was given number 3 in the Royal Rumble and went on to win it together with being given Bobby Heenan to promote the hell out of him for the whole match. If he entered at 25 and Heenan wasnt on commentary i dont think it would have had the same impact, ultimately i'd argue that it was the WWF giving Flair huge exposure in the Rumble in order for him to draw.

I don't see what relevance the 1992 Royal Rumble has on Ric Flair being the top draw for the NWA in 80's. Flair went from territory to territory drawing huge against local challengers. The guy was already one of the greatest of all time before he showed up in the WWF in late 1991.

I think we are arguing from two different criteria. You seem to be evaluating Flair's WWF/WWE and TNA career while I'm talking about his entire career not just what the WWE wants me to remember.

liverbnz wrote:Following on from Hero's question, how big a draw was Flair when he was WWF and WCW champ?

Well yes Don, clearly. Given the above question this is what i've been commenting on. Nothing to do with his NWA days, the topic is about how big a draw his was as WWF/WCW Champion, and im discussing the WWF side of things.

Don Caboose wrote:

Mr H wrote:I just looked this up:

In his two title reigns, Flair held the title for a total of 118 days.

Savage had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 520 days.

Yokozuna had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 280 days.

Sheamus has had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 161 days.

Alberto Del Rio has had two reigns, holding the title for a total of 84 days.

This is my favourite - Diesel had 1 reign and held the WWF Title for 358 days and he's viewed as one of the worst drawing champions of all time!

It doesnt look good for Flair really does it!

Since when does that mean anything, Rock was WWF/E champion 7 times and his combined days don't even break the 300 mark.

Flair's legacy being completely underplayed is a new one for me, most message boards I've ever visited are usually unanimous in that he comes after only Hogan, Austin and Rock in the modern era. While I'd argue that HBK, Undertaker and Cena have definitely surpassed him, he is at worst on the same level as Bret Hart or Randy Savage.

I disagree with you on how you view Savage, in terms of character, look, ring ability and connection with the fans, as well as his unbelievable nack to constantly put on top matches with a plethora of guys with different styles, Savage for me is and always has been miles ahead of Ric Flair

Mr H wrote:To be honest gaffer i think Flair/Warrior may have fallen even flatter than Savage/Warrior did. All the crowd wanted was Bulldog/Hart, anything else wasnt going to touch it.

Imagine if that did happen though and Warrior took the title off Flair at Summerslam and how that would have changed the landscape of what actually went on to happen. Would Bret Hart still have been pushed into the main event and fueded with Warrior? Would have been a good card - Savage/Perfect, Warrior/Flair, Bulldog/Hart.

I think you might be remembering Wembley through bunting tinted specs to be honest mate, while Bret/Bulldog was the local main event, the most over Pro Wrestler in the UK at that time was The Ultimate Warrior, he had been since 1990 & 91 and returning in 92 created a massive buzz

While Hogan was the top man in America, due to the timing of SKY's introducing the WWF to the UK on a regular basis, the Warrior was seen as the top guy this side of the water

There was so much call for Warrior from Britain that his last WWF figure went on sale in the UK first, before America in the week leading up to SummerSlam, while Bulldog was the local hero, Warrior was the global Superstar, the crowd lapped him up

I'm sure he was topping all those popularity polls the WWF used to do at the time too although that could have been kayfabe which in turn you'd tnink would favour Bulldog if it where Kayfabe

Yeah true fair enough you do make a good point. If Warrior had won the WWF Title at Wembley against Flair i'd imagine the place would have gone bananas.

We're the same age so id imagine you, like me, were a huge Warrior fan as a 9/10 year old boy!

Why was Flair not on the Summerslam card in a match (92) was he injured?

Mr H wrote:Yeah true fair enough you do make a good point. If Warrior had won the WWF Title at Wembley against Flair i'd imagine the place would have gone bananas.

We're the same age so id imagine you, like me, were a huge Warrior fan as a 9/10 year old boy!

I certainly was.... If you were from that era something was seriously wrong with you if you prefered Hogan to either Savage or Warrior

How old are you then Brady?

Yeah most Brit 26-35 year olds who got into Wrestling in the late 80s early 90s are/where Warrior's

Brady12 wrote:Why was Flair not on the Summerslam card in a match (92) was he injured?

I'm really not sure, my only guess is that they never had a big enough face to have a feud with him since he was still heavily involved with the Warrior/Savage build up

Mr H wrote:How old are you then Brady?

31 pal... 1st pay per view I saw was Wrestlemania 7 in 91

the-gaffer wrote:

Brady12 wrote:Why was Flair not on the Summerslam card in a match (92) was he injured?

I'm really not sure, my only guess is that they never had a big enough face to have a feud with him since he was still heavily involved with the Warrior/Savage build up

The original plan for Summerslam 92 was for Warrior to turn heel, hence the whole Flair/Perfect involvement in the angle. The reason he wasn't in a match himself was because he was supposed to have a significant impact in the main event, ie revealing himself to be in cahoots with Warrior.

I'm not sure how far in advance they changed plans, but Warrior refused to turn heel and by that point the match was booked and the main event had been established, so rather than try to rush Flair into an ill-fitting match they stuck to the original plan somewhat by having the whole "who's siding with who?" storyline play out at Wembley, just without the Warrior heel turn.

Also, I voted top 5 because - however much he has tarnished his legacy in the last decade - he was absolutely phenomenal for over a decade at his peak, an complete workhorse who had the best matches and cut the best promos almost every night of his life, by most accounts. I don't know if anybody in wrestling history has ever achieved such a consistent level of good-to-great matches for such a long period.

I think he sails into the top five and there is still a great case to be made that he is the best ever, but there can be no doubt that his legacy has been badly tainted.