Nothing going on this week, so let's go back to the inbox...
Hey Scott,
long-time reader, first-time e-mailer. I was reading JD Dunn's review of the Great American Bash '91, and he says this about the Jim Herd/Ric Flair situation: "Jim Herd wanted Ric Flair to get an ear ring or dress up like a gladiator. Ric Flair wanted dignity. The two simply couldn't co-exist, so Herd demanded Flair drop the title to Lex Luger. Flair refused because he thought Luger wasn't good enough to carry the company, so Herd stripped Flair of the title and sent him packing up to Titanland." If I remember correctly, wasn't Flair one of the people who was very critical of Bret Hart for not laying down for Michaels in Montreal because Bret was asked to do the job and thus should have done it? Maybe I'm not getting/understanding the whole story here, as I hadn't know about this earlier Flair stuff before, but after reading JD's summary of Herd/Flair, it seems Flair is a hypocrite to call anybody out after that, stupid as the earring/gladiator thing and the request to job to Luger may have been. Your thoughts?
The 1991 situation was a bit more complicated than that, as Flair's contract was expiring and Herd was going to lowball him and turn him into a midcarder. And the belt was going to move to Windham, not Luger, so technically Flair never refused to put Luger over. Back in the glory years of 88-90, though, Flair absolutely refused to put Luger over several times. I haven't heard anything from him specifically about Bret (it's usually Bret talking about Flair) but absolutely I'd call him a hypocrite if he said that Bret should have dropped the belt when asked.
The funny thing thinking about this stuff these days is that the current belts are pretty much worthless anyway. Could you imagine someone leaving the WWE today because they were asked to drop one of the 14 versions of the World title out there? MARK HENRY won a damn World title!
Related Posts:
`Tags: Bret Hart, Lex Luger, Mailbags, MMA, Montreal, Ric Flair, WWE
Call Flair a hypocrite then, because he wrote in his book that Bret was out of line for refusing to drop the belt. I forget the exact phrasing, but it’s there.
Also, I believe Flair mentioned on his first DVD (when he was talking about the 91 Herd situation) that Herd had first asked him to drop the belt to Luger, then later, Windham. Though I’m sure there was a lot more to it than that.
I’m glad that someone else picked up on that aspect during Dunn’s review, because that story definitely raised a red flag to me regarding Bret.
Tune in next week for the latest episode of As the Old Wrestlers Turn
Yeah, “Flair: The Definitive Collection” is on 24/7 right now. In there Flair talks about the Jim Herd situation. In there Flair claims that Herd asked him to put over Luger, but Flair didn’t want to drop the belt to Luger, because they had been building up Sting for so long to take back the belt, and jobbing to Luger would be illogical and Flair didn’t feel he was worthy of it. (They totally threw this in there to BURY Luger, like WWE does to all past employees who pissed off Vince McMahon.)
Then Flair called up Herd and said he would drop the strap to Windham, but Herd basically said FU, I am stripping you of the title. That’s when Flair said he better come up with the deposit, called up Vinny Mac, and the rest is history.
But I totally agree with premise of the original emailer. Flair is SUCH a hypocrite, and it is just nauseating how he will go out of his way to criticize anything about WCW and kiss Vinny Mac’s ass at all corners. Give it a rest, Naitch.
Nothing going on? What about the massive lay-offs WWE’s gone through recently? And not just the usual developmental talents or dark match guys, but scads of referees and guys who’ve been there for a long time like Slaughter?
“Could you imagine someone leaving the WWE today because they were asked to drop one of the 14 versions of the World title out there? MARK HENRY won a damn World title!”
Someone walking about because they didn’t want to drop the ECW title would be hilarious. Could you picture Matt Hardy going, “You can job me out to the guy who stole my girlfriend and put me in a storyline where an undead zombie coerces said girlfriend into sex to protect me thereby making me look like a complete wuss but I swear to God I will walk out of this damn company before I drop this belt to Jack F’n Swagger!”
Gee you mean Ric Flair is towing the same line as Shawn Michaels and Triple H regarding the Montreal incident??????? That’s crazytalk! What’s next is somebody going to report that Ric Flair is one of the biggest asskissers in wrestling history?
Haha, touche my cynical friend.
Correct me if I’m wrong (it’s been a while since I read Flair’s book), but I don’t think dropping the title was the biggest issue with Flair in ‘91.
I believe Flair had already agreed to a program with Windham where he would drop it to him at a later date, but Herd began to start jerking the booking decisions around, attempting the humiliation/demotion of Flair, and finally (after the writing was on the wall that Flair would probably jump ship), called him one day, and TOLD him to put Luger over at a house show.
** Keep in mind all this is happening while Flair’s contract with WCW was coming up, and Herd was offering Flair a virtual hill of beans for him to resign. **
When Flair said NO, Herd demanded he turn over the belt, even sending Doug Dillenger (head of WCW security) to his home to retrieve it. Flair asked for the $25,000 deposit back (plus interest), but Herd refused. So, Flair called Vince, said he was ready to deal, and he had a (BIG GOLD) belt to bring with him.
The rest, as they say, is history…
He still disobeyed his boss. Which is what he criticized Bret for.
Flair was in the EXACT same position as Bret…leaving a company for more money except he didn’t lay down for anybody.
And talk about hypocritical…he showed up on WWF with the f’in belt! If that’s not disrespectful to the business, than what is? Flair gets a pass because it’s Flair, WCW was stupid enough to let it happen and the WWF won the war.
Flair has come off really bad on 24/7. His DVD documentary ended with him kissing ass for 30 minutes and burying WCW & the nWo, which had him saying that the nWo guys were wrong for burying their former employer (WWF) when they left. Pot, kettle, black.
And his performances on the Legends rountable were embarassing. He kept talking down to Taz & Foley, he had no fun stories to tell, he kept putting himself over for getting laid like your creepy uncle and he continued to bash the nWo for being the worst gimmick in history. It didn’t end well but from ‘96 to, oh, July ‘98…the nWo made WCW a shit ton of money.
In those two years, the nWo made more money for WCW than Ric Flair EVER did.
Very true
Agreed. I actually liked listening to the other guys on the “Definitive Collection” DVD talk about Flair other than Flair himself.
I was always convinced that the Ric Flair/Big Gold Belt situation from 1991 indirectly led to Montreal. Vince knew what could happen if WCW could claim that they had signed the WWF champion, since he essentially did it six years before, and he didn’t want it to happen.
Granted, Bret may not have shown up with the physical belt and he probably would have dropped it before he got to WCW, but Bischoff could have gone on TV and said “We signed the competition’s champion” and that could possibly have driven the final nail in the WWF’s coffin.
I believe the difference, in Flair’s mind, is that he was owed money for his belt and Bret wasn’t.
test
Its the same classic situation – people consider their own situation ‘different’ and ’special’ which therefore means that they can criticise others for the same conduct because of the perceived differences.
In the ring, Flair was one of the all-time greats. However, his ego and disrespect to other performers (Hart, Foley, Luger) is palpable and diminishes from his legacy.
I remember on the ‘Ultimate Collection’ DVD, Flair said unequivocally that 91-93 (in the WWF) were the best two years of his career, a comment which had my jaw on the ground.
First, let’s make sure you give the whole quote. He said it was the best two years of his career, aside from the time he spent with the original Horsemen.
Second, he meant it was the best two years of his life because it was practically the only time in his career he wasn’t going to war on a daily basis in the locker rooms with someone (like Dusty, Herd, Hogan, Bischoff, etc.). What’s jaw-dropping about that?
“Second, he meant it was the best two years of his life because it was practically the only time in his career he wasn’t going to war on a daily basis in the locker rooms with someone (like Dusty, Herd, Hogan, Bischoff, etc.). What’s jaw-dropping about that?”
I don’t want to start a flame war – but upon what evidence do you say that was what he “meant”? And upon what basis do you say there weren’t locker room struggles? If everything was so wonderful, why do we talk about 91-93 and not 91-07? I seem to recall that after his two title reigns, Flair got dropped a fair way down the pecking order – politics maybe?
And I found the comment jaw-dropping because during that two year period, Flair, even by his own words was not wrestling the highest-quality opponents. He had feuds with Hogan, Savage, Piper, Hogan / Luger etc.
Given Flair’s prediliction for praising WRESTLERS, would they really compare with Steamboat, Windham, Sting, Race and so on?
If Hogan, Savage, and Piper are not high quality wrestling opponents than I’d love to hear which wrestlers are. Those three are at the forefront of any legitimate professional wrestling hall of fame (WWE bias notwithstanding).
Another point about Montreal. I have and continue to believe that the whole problem stemmed from Hart’s ‘creative control’ clause in his contract. The meaning of this phrase had never been tested. Without it, Bret’s an employee who jobs to whoever McMahon designates.
With it, Bret feels he has an argument for partial say in the method of his dropping the title and managing his departure.
Just my $0.02.
I think overall Flair got used and played by Vince McMahon during his 91-93 run. Yea Flair won the WWF Title twice but soon after over a year in being the WWF at that point, Vince McMahon demotes him to Midcard status.
Heck I am not sure alot of the WWF guys at that time liked Flair. This goes with Bret Hart saying in his book that in Flair’s hotel room, people pissed in Flair’s bed even Vince himself.
Yeah I kind of agree with this too. Flair came in with a hot angle, which is kind of ironic because all of the RSPW people at the time thought Vince would do terrible things to his image way worse then Herd could have. My favorite was the idea of Ric Flair doing vignettes at a local camp dressed in a park rangers outfit, saving campers from wildlife and stopping the spread of forest fires because he’s the “Nature Boy!” You are right though, after he lost to Savage at Wrestlemania he was pretty much absent from the ring and his next title reign was simply a transitional move to get the title to Bret Hart. Flair must have felt things were pretty bad if he requested a release to go back to WCW in 1993, especially when he had a no compete clause in his contract.
“In the ring, Flair was one of the all-time greats. However, his ego and disrespect to other performers (Hart, Foley, Luger) is palpable and diminishes from his legacy.”
Well said, friend. Bret Hart has taken a lot of flack over the years for his bitterness and his inability to let go of what happened in Montreal. But given the circumstances, it can be justified, even if he does need to move on from some things.
Meanwhile, Flair is King A-hole and for all the crap he and Michaels have spewed over the years about how Bret Hart is Bret Hart’s biggest mark…he doesn’t compare to Flair. Flair thinks pro wrestling is himself, Shawn Michaels and Triple H. The praise for other wrestlers was sparse in his book (if I remember correctly), while the alleged egotistical Hart never put down Michaels’ wrestling ability. I think the ONLY mainstream wrestler Hart put down was Flair.
It doesn’t surprise me at all that Flair/HBK/HHH are best buds behind the scenes. Here are three guys that despite being world champions and occasional draws were never a main draw a la Hogan, Andre, Inoki, Austin, Rock or Cena. It always irks me to hear Flair described as the “greatest of all time”, HHH is a “student of the game…cerebral assassin blah blah blah”, HBK is “the main event, mr wrestlemania”. Hey you know what these three guys aren’t: THE MAIN DRAW. Deep down they all know it.
It also helps that these three are allegedly amongst some of the biggest chickenshits in wrestling. At least DDP had the balls to stand up to Steiner even though he probably knew he would get his ass whooped.
I think that Ichiban makes a crucual point. For all that the ‘purists’ love Flair, he has never drawn insance money. If Scott is still reading this thread, I’d love for him to list who he feels are the top 10 draws of all-time (as in when THEY were at the top of their company) in their drawing prime. I’d go :
(1) Austin
(2) Hogan
(3) Rock
(4) Sammartino
(5) Cena
(6) Flair
(7) Von Erich Family
(8) Bret Hart
(9) Thesz
(10) Sting (1997).
Even then, people like Hogan have several different periods at several different companies when he was drawing more than Flair at his peak.
If Flair wasn’t a draw, the Bret Hart sure as hell wasn’t a draw, either.
Yes this is true. Although I’m a much bigger fan of Bret Hart’s wrestling skills than Flair’s he was not much of a draw at all.
I hate these conversations about who was a “draw” and who wasn’t. It’s so hard to rank things like this because of the timeline in which they span. You’d really need to do an academic study, taking into account inflation, merchandise figures, the REAL buyrates for all shows, television ratings, house show business. I think a lot of people forget how big house shows were in the 80s then they were even in the 90s. The shift from Superstars to Monday Night Raw as being the main wrestling show on TV is case and point of how much wrestling changed just in that short period — Superstars was syndicated and was filled with segments that targeted each individual market in which it aired. I remember back when we had two channels that aired Superstars at the same time and on one I could hear advertisements for (rare) Portland, OR area house shows and on the other San Francisco, CA events. Once we hit the 90s, house show revenue become much less important and PPV became king, so you have to take that into account when comparing numbers. I just don’t think it’s feasible given most of the information we’ve been exposed too, there are too many worked numbers out there. People are STILL fighting about the WrestleMania III attendance even twenty years later.
It would be my guess I think Hogan is pretty far above everybody over the long-run. Austin didn’t really start to bring in the cash until 1998 and it was only a few years before he was finished. Hogan drew vasts amount of money from 1985-1989 and I’m sure did pretty well from 1990 until 1992. He sold a ton of merchandise during his NWO run as well, so I don’t think anybody is going to touch his numbers when adjusted for inflation.
I don’t know if that comment was directed at me or not but I was listing the wrestlers who most definitely were a top draw. Specifically I listed Hogan, Andre the Giant, Inoki, Stone Cold, the Rock, and John Cena. Wrestlers who were definitely proven to draw money over an extended period of time (ok I know Cena is a relative newbie). If I’ve said something you disagree with please elaborate.
It wasn’t really directed at you. As far as your rankings, as general list I mostly agree with you, I’m just saying there is no way to really put them in any meaningful order given the information that we have to go on. There are too many other factors to consider.
The term “draw” is such a vague concept anyway and really has more to do with egos then facts, as wrestlers only really use the term to deride other wrestles that they don’t like as “not being a draw”.
Flair’s not a hypocrite.
Flair had “veto power” in his contract which said, I don’t have to do this job if I don’t want to.
Hart had “reasonable creative control” in his contract. That’s not veto power. That’s just some say in what is going to go down.
The question: Is it reasonable to expect to not drop your title in what will be your last pay-per-view appearance with the company? Is it reasonable to expect to remain World Champion AND on Raw when the competition is about to announce you are coming over on Nitro?
Flair was using his veto power to protect himself and try and get fair value from a company that notoriously undervalued him. Hart was trying to get out of doing a job to a guy he didn’t like, and basically increased his marketability for THE COMPETITION. It’s apples and oranges.
“It’s apples and oranges.”
No, it’s red apples and green apples.
Saying that the two are different because Flair had “veto” power and Hart had “creative control” is pretty ridiculous hair-splitting. You can use your creative control to veto any job.
Regardless of why Flair was using his veto power, he ran Bret Hart down for doing the same thing he did six years earlier. His stance was that if the company asks you to do a job — you do the job.
Even if Herd’s requests were stupid, he was still Flair’s boss. It was only after Flair became permanently holed up in McMahon’s asshole that he decided it was best to be the company man.
I’m part way through watching the latest Flair DVD. In it I recall him saying he promised Sting he would drop the title to him and refused to job to Lugar for that reason. Then he offered to drop to Windham (which didn’t make sense.. what about his promise to Sting?) and Herd told him to forget about it and he would just have Dillenger come by and pick up the belt.
You’re getting slightly confused.
I think Sting was supposed to win the title from Flair in Feb. 1990 or so but he injured his knee climbing the cage at the Clash that month and was out until the Bash. Flair said he refused to drop the belt to Luger before Sting got back because he had promised him the title.
The situation with Luger and/or Windham was in June/July 1991.
No he’s right. Flair said as much in the “Definitive Collection”. He had won back the title from Sting in Jan ‘91 so he could have those series of “dream” matches with Tatsumi Fujinami that winter/spring. (Flair was a better draw for the Japanese crowd at the time). But the plan from Flair’s perspective was to always drop the belt back to Sting. It was at this point where Herd started trying to exert his power.
I obviously missed that when I watched the DVD. Sorry to mislead anyone and thanks for setting me straight!
Actually, Mark Henry has won two world titles: ECW and World’s Strongest Man.
Did he win the latter from Dino Bravo? Or was it Doug Furnas?
Bill Kazmeier.
Which is why Mark Henry v. Ted Arcidi remains a dream match.
You’re both wrong, it was Ken Patera in a tournament in Rio.
Right, to unify the Northern Hemisphere’s Strongest Man and the Southern Hemisphere’s Strongest Man, if I remember correctly?
…and thus was created Magnus Perez, a swarthy blonde behemoth who could wrestle wild llamas to the ground with a 300 lb. barrel of lutefisk strapped to his back.
Looking back, in hindsight it really was kind of silly for Flair to not drop the title to Luger in the late 80s, especially at Starrcade 88. Ric Flair always seemed to be at odds with the authority figures in the NWA/WCW (Dusty Rhodes, Jim Herd, Eric Bischoff) and while I’m sure most of what we’ve heard about them is true, I can’t help but think that Flair was wearing his own welcome out too. He dropped the title to Ronnie Garvin just so that he could setup a big Starrcade match and to Ricky Steamboat because they had great matches and Flair just got it back in the end anyway. It’s weird that he couldn’t have at least pulled that switch once with Luger to make him look like a bigger star instead of a choker. I don’t know, I guess maybe just as Luger was coming into his own, that so was Sting and maybe they just figured they could make a lot more money there once he got seasoned enough.
BTW – I just started watching WCW in late 1991, was there even really a fresh angle between Flair and Luger going into the Great American Bash, aside form the previous history between the two? I know they did the whole Muta/Luger match at the Clash to establish a #1 contender, but was there any real angle to setup the match?
I still have a tape full of the Great American Bash promos with “Rapmaster” PN News (who actually was a much harder worker then he got credit for, when he wasn’t breaking people’s legs and ending his career). They had to start running a crawl along the bottom to say that they’d changed the title match. It’s probably all for the better, because what are you really going to rhyme with Windham?
Nah, that’s another thing that bugged me about WCW at the time — they had an angle for Flair v. Luger handed to them on a silver platter, and there was no attempt to play off the history between them. I think that had a lot to do with the split between WCW and NWA, where they were trying to disassociate the history, but GEEZ.
When it comes to draws, you can really only put them in groups. Like Austin & Hogan (and maybe Bruno, different era) were in a league if their own in terms of crowds, merchandise and such.
Then there’s the group below them like Flair, Hart, HBK, Sting, etc. that had their fans, made ton of money from their fans but didn’t cross over into the mainstream. Its stupid to argue like Flair or Hart. But you can say Hogan > Flair or Austin > Hart.
As for Cena…I don’t know what type of draw he is. Ratings, buyrates, attendance, etc. haven’t changed at all due to him on the top of the card but he moves a lot of merchandise.
Moreover, any given PPV, house show, TV show features more than one guy. I never liked Hogan, but tuned in to see Savage, the Bulldogs etc. Similarly, the Rock as a face bored me, but there were a ton of others who kept me watching.
It’s a silly concept that ignores every other bloke on the roster as to why someone chooses to watch.
Ratings have gone up since Cena’s return
Buyrates have gone down though. I’m just saying that Cena isn’t the spark that’s going to bring the WWE to Hogan or Austin levels of popularity.