Straight up poll: Bret vs Ric

[spawnsyxx9]

After seeing some debate in this forum and another, I have decided to put up the poll as to who has done more for the business of pro wrestling.

I would have to say Flair. I am a huge Hart mark, but I understand that anyone who idolizes Hart probably should also idolize Flair because if not for Flair busting his hump in those 60+ min matches, Hart wouldn't have much to talk about.
Flair busted his hump to be the best and to legitimize this sport in the living room of the average American much more than Hart did.
I'm not talking about wrestling ability, I'm not talking promo, I'm not even talking about money... I'm saying that Flair did more backstage and more in the front for the pro wrestling business than Hart did.
Very similar to how many will say that Hogan did a lot for the pro wrestling biz and I will never counter them. Compared to Flair, Hogan sucked, but I will never forget that wrestling is a business and Hogan put butts in the seats. So did Flair. Did Hart? Yes, but I doubt as much as Flair did. I will always side with Hart over anyone else save for two people. Ric Flair and Lou Thesz.

Maybe I like Ed Santel over Hart too but that is a different story.

[Dwight]

I don't think its "who has done more" but more so "whose the better wrestler".

[Chicago]

This will eventually turn into a debate of who is the better wrestler, but as for the original question, Flair has done more for the wrestling business than Bret Hart.

Also, that's coming from a Bret Hart fan, and I respect what both contributed to professional wrestling, but I've always enjoyed Bret's work a little more than Flair. Bret was a throwback to generations before him, but was able to easily adapt to his then-current surroundings and put on classics with some of the best (and worst) from the late 80s to late 90s.

Not to say Flair wasn't able to do the same (and often better than Hart), but I just enjoy Bret's work more since it is what I grew up on and was introduced to at a very young age.

[user9327]

For my opinion just see Chicago's post.

[spawnsyxx9]

Nov 18, 2008 18:42:34 GMT -5 Dwight said:

I don't think its "who has done more" but more so "whose the better wrestler".

Didn't I just say it wasn't about that?
In a business where it is a work... how can anyone say who is a better wrestler? It should be based upon who told a better story in between the ropes and even then, they are supremely close.

If you can't talk about Hart vs Flair without trying to say who is a "better" wrestler then under that process... Kurt Angle is the best ever because he can do it all plus was a gold medal winner.

[v/\v]

This will descend to "who is the better wrestler?".

Ric has done more for the business.

[Bret_Hart_Mark™]

Ric Flair is a mark for Bret Hart end of story.

[Dwight]

Nov 18, 2008 18:51:42 GMT -5 spawnsyxx9 said:

Nov 18, 2008 18:42:34 GMT -5 Dwight said:

I don't think its "who has done more" but more so "whose the better wrestler".

Didn't I just say it wasn't about that?
In a business where it is a work... how can anyone say who is a better wrestler? It should be based upon who told a better story in between the ropes and even then, they are supremely close.

If you can't talk about Hart vs Flair without trying to say who is a "better" wrestler then under that process... Kurt Angle is the best ever because he can do it all plus was a gold medal winner.

I'm well aware of the question. I also believe you took the debate from the other thread and thought people were debating on "whose done more" when they were discussing who "is the better wrestler". Which Is why I made my first comment.

What does angle have to do with this? This would be a debate between two men and whose the better of the two.

Regardless of how it is asked, I'm still going with the Hitman. I mean its obvious whose "done more" That would be Flair. There isn't any debate in that.

[Patrick Bateman]

Flair.

Ric is a mark for Bret? Ric is a mark for Ric.

Secondly, Bret Hart has/had no charisma outside of his brief heel run in 1997. He's always that "guy who had a great wrestling match with the really entertaining, charismatic guy". See Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin or Owen Hart.

Flair can work the mic at the end of the day and make you want to see the match. Bret can't.

[Next Man’s Yeeter]

I voted for Bret. I'm not much of a fan of either, but I only knew of Flair after his WWF debut, and he never impressed me a great deal from 1991 up until his retirement. Bret was always very boring, but he had a lot of matches that I really enjoyed over the years.

Nov 18, 2008 19:02:33 GMT -5 Bret_Hart_Mark™ said:

Ric Flair is a mark for Bret Hart end of story.

Hooray for random nonsense!

[spreedom8]

Ric Flair is a much bigger name (I wouldn't say 100% that he's done more for wrestling -- too vague) but Bret is far and away a better as far as in-ring ability is concerned. Flair got carried by Ricky Steamboat in a series of 45+ minute snoozefests that a lot of people regard as the best matches ever. I don't see it. I've watched each of their recorded matches at least once and I don't see the appeal. Flair, to me, spent the last 15 years of his career as a comedy wrestler in the ring and is nearly impossible to take seriously, considering how bad he is at selling and the fact that his only offense is chopping and strutting. Bret was a little formulaic, but he also produced very high quality matches in an era full of some pretty ridiculous gimmicks (from Doink to Nailz to Mantaur... Bret made 'em all look like gold).

[Deleted]

IMO, Ric Flair has not only done more for the business, be he is also the better wrestler. Don't get me wrong, Bret Hart was amazing and he did some things for the business, but since Flair doesn't whine about the same thing for ten years, I got more respect for him. Also, he is a house hold name, and there are no more wrestlers like that besides Hogan, and that's a whole other debate. Flair could really get the crowd going, and I don't know one wrestling fan who dislikes Flair.

[Koko B. Rocket]

Let me start by saying I am a big fan of both these wrestlers.

Whether or not Bret Hart is a superior scientific wrestler is completely irrelevant. That being said, I do feel that Ric Flair was a superior professional wrestler. Also, I believe he did more for the business of professional wrestling.

Plus, we never really saw Flair go full throttle amateur style, so really, who knows?

Regardless, my answer for this question is Ric Flair.

[sinnitup]

Ric flair. No doubt about it.

[Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion]

Both are EXTREMELY overrated... but Brett gets the edge for me beings he's from Canada

[slappy]

Flair is all around better than Bret.

[Deleted]

Undertaker says Bret was his toughest opponent of all time, he'd pull the best out of taker. He said his matches with Bret were pretty much greuling in a good way.

[Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion]

Nov 18, 2008 20:26:39 GMT -5 cb88 said:

Undertaker says Bret was his toughest opponent of all time, he'd pull the best out of taker. He said his matches with Bret were pretty much greuling in a good way.

Quick question... how is THIS of all things meant to be a measure of who's better?

[Edge618]

Bret Hart did nothing for the business. He's just another superstar, he didnt revolutionize anything.

[spreedom8]

Nov 18, 2008 20:32:51 GMT -5 Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion said:

Nov 18, 2008 20:26:39 GMT -5 cb88 said:

Undertaker says Bret was his toughest opponent of all time, he'd pull the best out of taker. He said his matches with Bret were pretty much greuling in a good way.

Quick question... how is THIS of all things meant to be a measure of who's better?

I don't think much of 'Taker as a performer, but the guy has seen it all in WWE. There isn't a lot of significant wrestlers that have passed through in the past 18 or so years that he hasn't feuded with pretty extensively, so I hold his opinion in very high esteem.