Flairs World Title "Record" (NWO spoilers inside)

gimmick

Now that HHH has picked up yet another world title after his "heroic" efforts last night, he has edged ever closer to matching and eventually surpassing Flairs outstaning and long standing record of holding 16 world titles (though wiki clims it may be as high as 21).

Now, my question is this - not if, but when HHH supasses Flairs tally, will he be looked at as the greatest ever, like Flair is, or will he just be seen as a slightly better than average guy who just used his leverage to get to his position? Its a simple answer really isn't it?

But to go deeper into it, can anyone actually name more than 2 great feuds HHH had in all his reigns? Personally I can remember one, and that was against The Rock. It is to The Rock I offer the credit for it being memorable. Flair for his part feuded with a hall of fame whose who in his day - Dusty Rhodes, harley race, Ricky Steamboat, Sting, The Von Erichs. HHH? Ummmm Goldberg, Scott Steiner, Khali.

So, a second question, why is it such a bug bear for people that HHH will hold more world titles? It will not tarnish Flairs legacy one way or other. I don't think people should actually think it will. Flair earned his way to the top by being an amzing performer over a 30+ year career, HHH is at the top for other reasons. HHH is not, and will never be at the level Flair is at, even if he wins every WM Main event for the next ten years and racks up 35 title runs.

Or maybe this thread is just a massive statement of the obvious.

Machismo Fan

gimmick wrote: »

But to go deeper into it, can anyone actually name more than 2 great feuds HHH had in all his reigns? Personally I can remember one, and that was against The Rock. It is to The Rock I offer the credit for it being memorable. Flair for his part feuded with a hall of fame whose who in his day - Dusty Rhodes, harley race, Ricky Steamboat, Sting, The Von Erichs. HHH? Ummmm Goldberg, Scott Steiner, Khali.

Or does that just reflect badly on the standard of his competition. If you lumped Flair with Khali, Steiner (of 2003) and Goldberg you would most likely have had the same results as HHH. Same goes for HHH, would all his title reigns seem better if he were against Sting , Steamboat or Race.

gimmick

Very good point. But I am sure Flair had some dud feuds as well, which have been forgotten due to his other, better feuds.

HHH could have had better feuds himself had he not held down the likes of Benoit, Jericho (who he did feud well with, but never over a title if memory serves), Guerrero.

AlphaMale 3OO

It's a good question but a moot point. WWE once had a kind of 'face off' (I think on WWE.com or in WWE mag) where they compared Flairs totals and Triple H's totals on a bar graph and attached some garbage kayfabe story about how Triple H would love to beat the record. This makes so little sense it begars belief. For Triple H to "want" to break Flairs record, he would hav to "want" to lose the title at least another three times in order to equal and then break it. How retarded is that? Surely his main (kayfabe) objective is to hold on to his current title for the rest of his career? Meaning that his actual objective is to avoid beating Flairs record so that he remains champion forever more. WWE has got to stop refering to this and refering to multiple title reigns as badges of honour. That attitude rewards title losses. It makes no sense.

I don't think people look at Triple H taking the record like that. I think people look at it as being a little more disrespectful to Ric Flair than anything else. Flair is a guy who obviously worked very hard (and I'm not saying Triple H doesn't) to get his reigns. Triple H is, instead, using his position within the company to get his.

16 Time World Champion is Ric Flairs thing. It's what he'll be remembered for. Much like Undertaker will never be beat at WrestleMania. It's just something you associate with that person, and Triple H beating Flair's record is kind of like saying "Hey, Flair's not that big a deal. I can do it, too".

But of course, if we didn't have the internet we'd all love Triple H. Fact is, Triple H is just a new age Hogan. The only difference is that now many, many more people are aware of the things Triple H gets up to, whereas with Hogan, the majority of us were completely unaware of his politicing.

Bounty Hunter

his feuds with Foley and HBK were good not just the one with the Rock.

rossie1977

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Or does that just reflect badly on the standard of his competition. If you lumped Flair with Khali, Steiner (of 2003) and Goldberg you would most likely have had the same results as HHH. Same goes for HHH, would all his title reigns seem better if he were against Sting , Steamboat or Race.

sorry but no-way, flair turned rookies like sting, windham and luger into superstars in the mid 1980s, he had good matches with el gigante. HHH is not at the same level as flair or never was, flair is one of the greatest workers if not the greatest to ever set foot in the ring

if you work at it hard enough you can have a decent match with khali and make him look good, just ask john cena, that cena/khali feud was interesting because cena portrayed khali as a legit challenger to his title, khali pins cena clean at SNME, cena beats khali but with foot on rope, cena uses all sorts of weapons and the stage to finally down the unstoppable monster.

hhh on the other hand was only interested in squashing khali clean within 5 minutes which he did 3 times, thats boring, that doesn't draw

amacachi

Deleted User wrote: »

Triple H is, instead, using his position within the company to get his.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHA.

I was gonna copy and paste that a few times but I think it gets my point across as it is.

rossie1977

rossie1977 wrote: »

sorry but no-way, flair turned rookies like sting, windham and luger into superstars in the mid 1980s, he had good matches with el gigante. HHH is not at the same level as flair or never was, flair is one of the greatest workers if not the greatest to ever set foot in the ring

if you work at it hard enough you can have a decent match with khali and make him look good, just ask john cena, that cena/khali feud was interesting because cena protrayed khali as a legit challenger to his title, khali pins him clean, cena beats khali but with foot on rope, cena uses all sorts of weapons and the stage to finally down the unstoppable monster.

hhh on the other hand was only interested in squashing khali clean within 5 minutes which he did 3 times, thats boring, that doesn't draw

Their goal is different though. Ric Flair wanted to have a great match. Triple H wanted to be seen as amazing. I don't really complain that much about Triple H in general (moaning about him won't make him go away) but I really don't like the man's attitude.

I can't remember the last time Triple H was portrayed as being legitimately scared of another wrestler. At No Way Out, Kozlov and Show completely no-sold each other's moves and hit each other with all they had. But when Super H emerges, he sends them both flying. It's ridiculous. I'd really like to know what someone who thinks wrestling is real, thinks of Triple H.

amacachi wrote: »

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHA.

I was gonna copy and paste that a few times but I think it gets my point across as it is.

You may need to copy/paste it a few more times, then. Your post made no sense to me whatsoever. If you're trying to make the argument that with or without his place in the company, he'd be where he is today, then i can't agree. He may still be floating around the main event scenes like so many long-term main eventers tend to do in WWE, but he would never have held the world title as many times.

Mr.Nice Guy

So many of his reigns have been farcical, ie being handed the World Heavyweight Title after Lesnar jumped to SD, losing the belt due to an Edge/Benoit decision and then winning it at the Chamber (why lose it in the first place if the plan was to keep it on him?), beating Orton for the title and then losing it back to him later on and so forth. Pointless reigns that only happened because of his influence and to edge him nearer Flair's number.

To me what makes the fact he will overtake Flair's record so galling is that everyone knows deep down that if it wasn't for who he was married to, he wouldn't have so many reigns. Even the likes of Michaels, Taker and JBL who have political stroke, haven't managed to notch up his number of reigns. It's pure nepotism.

Will he be looked at as the greatest ever? Not by our generation of fans I imagine but the next? Quite possibly. I was shocked last night to hear duelling chants of 'Let's go Taker' and 'Triple H'. The idea of even four years ago people being split for those two would have been absurd. The WWE propaganda machine however can be very convicing and his lame attempts at comedy will probably appeal to some minds. I still get a bad feeling thinking back to the D-X skits but so many kids seemed to love it.

It saddens me that the likes of The Rock and Bret Hart will be pretty much unheard of for a new generation of fans who will look to Cena as the master of promos and Triple H as the pinnacle of greatness. We who remember the Attitude era witnessed a better time but one that looks dead and gone at this stage.

It will be a dark day in my opinion when he overtakes Flair's record because it will signify, finally, the dumbing down of wrestling and the lowering of standards. It will be a victory for politics and bloodlines, rather than one for blood, sweat and tears as embodied by Naitch.

rossie1977

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't remember the last time Triple H was portrayed as being legitimately scared of another wrestler. At No Way Out, Kozlov and Show completely no-sold each other's moves and hit each other with all they had. But when Super H emerges, he sends them both flying. It's ridiculous. I'd really like to know what someone who thinks wrestling is real, thinks of Triple H.

thats actually a good point, i was watching a bit of the taker/hhh fued from 2002 during the week and in one segment taker is in the ring demanding a match and HHH comes down staredowns taker and asks to go there and then but taker backs off all scared and says not right now

amacachi

Deleted User wrote: »

You may need to copy/paste it a few more times, then. Your post made no sense to me whatsoever. If you're trying to make the argument that with or without his place in the company, he'd be where he is today, then i can't agree. He may still be floating around the main event scenes like so many long-term main eventers tend to do in WWE, but he would never have held the world title as many times.

Ok, I'll spell it out. Are you suggesting that Flair never used his position in different companies to get title reigns?

amacachi

Also, can someone clear this up for me, as I'm not quite sure how accurate this is:


Did Triple H enter the Unforgiven WWE Championship Scramble as an 11 time champion, never actually lose the belt, but emerge from the match as a 12 time champion (despite him retaining it?)


EDIT:

amacachi wrote: »

Ok, I'll spell it out. Are you suggesting that Flair never used his position in different companies to get title reigns?

I'm suggesting that Ric Flair's ultimate goal was to have a great match, and not to be a 16-time world champion. I'm sure Flair, like practically every other known wrestler in the world, has used some influence to get to where he is today, but I wouldn't imagine he is as bad as Hogan was, or as bad as Triple H is. I'm sure he played Mr. Politician enough times in his career, but i still believe his priority was to have a good match, and not always want to emerge as an unstoppable force.

rossie1977

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, can someone clear this up for me, as I'm not quite sure how accurate this is:


Did Triple H enter the Unforgiven WWE Championship Scramble as an 11 time champion, never actually lose the belt, but emerge from the match as a 12 time champion (despite him retaining it?)

no, nothing changed during the scramble match, HHH went in a 12 time champ and left a 12 time champ

Bubs101

Moot point. Edge will hold the record and the internet will be happy,

But for all the people complaining about Hunter getting his belt back all the time, Flair did it as well. Dropped it only to win it back in two weeks. Did it again and won it back in three days. Two reigns were seperated by seventeen days. One of his WWE title runs was very short as well. He had even more short reigns but people have forgotten about this. They only care about 16 time champion Flair. Not all of his reigns were Sammartino-esque, very few of them were

rossie1977

Bubs101 wrote: »

Moot point. Edge will hold the record and the internet will be happy,

But for all the people complaining about Hunter getting his belt back all the time, Flair did it as well. Dropped it only to win it back in two weeks. Did it again and won it back in three days. Two reigns were seperated by three days. One of his WWE title runs was very short as well. He had even more short reigns but people have forgotten about this. They only care about 16 time champion Flair. Not all of his reigns were Sammartino-esque, very few of them were

thats true, flairs last few wcw reigns were short but his nwa reigns were long for the most part, his 4th reign there last 793 days, his 5th lasted 412 days, his 6th lasted 452 days, 7th lasted 426 days. he is second only to lou thesz in terms of time holding NWA belt (over 3100 days in flairs case)

edge cannot be compared to HHH, HHH is now set to feature in the world title match at mania for the 8th time in just over a month since 2000, edge has been in one, hogan was in 5, 6 if you count WM9, taker in 3

Bubs101

That's because there are two brands now so two main events. Divide that number in half and you get the true total. Also, Flair main evented every NWA territory for years and years when he was fit. All of the territory's Wrestlemania equivalent's were when Flair was in town

rossie1977

Bubs101 wrote: »

That's because there are two brands now so two main events. Divide that number in half and you get the true total

that should mean everyone has been in loads of main-events at mania that is simply not the case

since 2000 (championship matches at mania only)
john cena has been in 4
batista has been 2
orton in 2
edge in 1
undertaker in 2
shawn michaels in 2

had HHH not been injured in 2007 he would already be at 8, HHH had already notched up 3 title matches at mania before the two main event thing anyway

Bubs101

Cena hasn't been a top level star since 2000, neither has Batista or edge or Orton. Undertaker has the streak which limits him because he can only win (Hunter puts over most people at WM) and HBK doesn't want the belt.

rossie1977

Bubs101 wrote: »

Cena hasn't been a top level star since 2000, neither has Batista or edge or Orton. Undertaker has the streak which limits him because he can only win (Hunter puts over most people at WM) and HBK doesn't want the belt.

ok so, in the same time period that HHH was in 3 title matches at mania pre two mania main events, wrestlers on a different level to HHH completely in terms of drawing power (ausin and rock) were in 3 as well, foley btw was in 1

putting people over in the title match at mania is irrelevant, he is still there in the title match, still headlining, still getting his face on the main poster/advert. why can't he put people over half way down the card?? wrestlemania is not going to implode upon itself without HHH in the title match

rossie1977

rossie1977 wrote: »

no, nothing changed during the scramble match, HHH went in a 12 time champ and left a 12 time champ

Ah right. Wasn't sure, as JR says he is "officially a 13 time world champion" at the end of the match, but i wasn't sure if it was actually official.

Mr.Nice Guy

Ric Flair

Debuts in 1972. Notches up sixteen world title reigns recognised by WWE over a 36 year career.

Triple H

Debuts in 1993. Notches up thirteen world title reigns recognised by WWE over a 16 year career. By my count ten of his reigns occurred following his relationship with Stephanie McMahon.

So Triple H has had a career less than half as long as the Nature Boy's and yet has accumulated almost as many World Title reigns.

Of course there's NO CONNECTION to his position in the McMahon family and you'd be a bitch and a hater to suggest otherwise.

He must be there on merit. The greatest of all time. What a guy.

Shaneomac

Bubs101 wrote: »

Cena hasn't been a top level star since 2000, neither has Batista or edge or Orton. Undertaker has the streak which limits him because he can only win (Hunter puts over most people at WM) and HBK doesn't want the belt.

Was Cena,Orton and Batista even in the wwe in 2000???????????????

Shaneomac

Shaneomac wrote: »

Was Cena,Orton and Batista even in the wwe in 2000???????????????

He's not saying they were. He's simply saying that since that year, x amount of people had x amount or main events.

Bubs101

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Ric Flair

Debuts in 1972. Notches up sixteen world title reigns recognised by WWE over a 36 year career.

Triple H

Debuts in 1993. Notches up thirteen world title reigns recognised by WWE over a 16 year career. By my count ten of his reigns occurred following his relationship with Stephanie McMahon.

So Triple H has had a career less than half as long as the Nature Boy's and yet has accumulated almost as many World Title reigns.

Of course there's NO CONNECTION to his position in the McMahon family and you'd be a bitch and a hater to suggest otherwise.

He must be there on merit. The greatest of all time. What a guy.

Flair's 36 year career petered out massively. The last time he was champion was 94 meaning that 14 of those 36 years were just hanging out with evolution and getting payed by Bischoff to sit in Carolina. He has 16 reigns in 22 years.

As for Hunter, he's been a consistent top draw ever since 1997 and ever since 2002, has had twice as much of a chance to be World Champion then Flair. For me, one of the main reasons that HUnter has so many reigns is because he's part of the family but not because they favour him for that. It's because they watched the Rock and Austin leave and Cena do a movie. Trips will always come back and he's the guy they can trust the most, kind of like the only reason Flair got so many titles is because all of the thirteen heads of the regional promotions trusted Flair and Flair only to draw everywhere seeing the other star's power as regional

Fozzy

amacachi wrote: »

Ok, I'll spell it out. Are you suggesting that Flair never used his position in different companies to get title reigns?

I was going to post this. The feeling of resentment that some have towards HHH is the exact same thing that Flair experienced from some fans at different points in his career

You can read readers' letters from Wrestling Observer back issues that are worse than what MNG wrote about HHH!

rossie1977

Bubs101 wrote: »

Flair's 36 year career petered out massively. The last time he was champion was 94 meaning that 14 of those 36 years were just hanging out with evolution and getting payed by Bischoff to sit in Carolina. He has 16 reigns in 22 years.

thats incorrect, flair was wcw champ twice in 2000, once in 1999, once in 1996 and once in 1995

EdK

Triple H always knew who to get close to, the minute he got into the WWE he tried to get in with the Kliq, he knows how to succeed so what can you do?

Bubs101

Bubs101 wrote: »

they watched the Rock and Austin leave and Cena do a movie. Trips will always come back

Of the people you mentioned, The Rock is the only one that really left. Austin isn't fit to wrestle and was getting incredibly stale. Cena has done a movie, but it was a WWE FILMS production. Besides, Triple H has done a mainstream movie (Blade) and a WWE FILMS movie (Jornada Del Muerto).

krudler

Deleted User wrote: »

Of the people you mentioned, The Rock is the only one that really left. Austin isn't fit to wrestle and was getting incredibly stale. Cena has done a movie, but it was a WWE FILMS production. Besides, Triple H has done a mainstream movie (Blade) and a WWE FILMS movie (Jornada Del Muerto).

Flair is in the new Command and Conquer game, he wins:D

Edge has done well with title reigns considering its been just over 3 years since he won his first world title, he really needs a good long run with it though, I know hes meant to be a dastardly heel who uses his woman to get him his title shots, oh wait....

Diabhal Beag

HHH is the Ric Flair of the new generation. As long as wrestling is alive we will have people trying to surpass their heroes. Kids nowadays don't care about 1989 NWA or the territories so HHH will eventually beat Flairs record

Rjd2

I have decided after NWO, in my internet time to ban myself from bitching about Super Hunter for the next 2 weeks:eek:, but I am still watching this with interest and enjoying the debate, but mostly the posts of MNG and rossie1977

Bubs101

Deleted User wrote: »

Of the people you mentioned, The Rock is the only one that really left. Austin isn't fit to wrestle and was getting incredibly stale. Cena has done a movie, but it was a WWE FILMS production. Besides, Triple H has done a mainstream movie (Blade) and a WWE FILMS movie (Jornada Del Muerto).

Austin left because of a disagreement, they wanted him to stay and the WWE had some involvement in the Scorpion King I'm pretty sure. They may have been a producer. The point is, Hunter will always stay regardless. He won't pull a Lashley, he won't do a Lesnar. The only way he's leaving is if him and Steph seperate and in that case he'd be gone anyway.

Mr.Nice Guy

Bubs101 wrote: »

Flair's 36 year career petered out massively. The last time he was champion was 94 meaning that 14 of those 36 years were just hanging out with evolution and getting payed by Bischoff to sit in Carolina. He has 16 reigns in 22 years.

As for Hunter, he's been a consistent top draw ever since 1997 and ever since 2002, has had twice as much of a chance to be World Champion then Flair. For me, one of the main reasons that HUnter has so many reigns is because he's part of the family but not because they favour him for that. It's because they watched the Rock and Austin leave and Cena do a movie. Trips will always come back and he's the guy they can trust the most, kind of like the only reason Flair got so many titles is because all of the thirteen heads of the regional promotions trusted Flair and Flair only to draw everywhere seeing the other star's power as regional

The difference though Bubs is that Kliq-style politics held Ric Flair back in latter years, whereas Kliq-style politics have catapulted Hunter to where he is today.

Hunter being a top draw is no big deal when he has the very means to ensure he is a top draw by virtue of his position.

There's a very big difference between being trusted due to your outstanding professionalism a la Flair, Foley and Taker, and being trusted because you are part of the family a la Triple H. It's pure nepotism.

It doesn't matter what the place of business is, whether it's WWE or McDonalds, if the distinction for most honours was to fall to the son-in-law of the boss then eyebrows would be raised and rightly so, particularly when said honours are acquired oh so cheaply.

No one would mind if Hunter's huge number of titles reflected merit but I don't believe it does, nor do I believe having the title belt on him is necessary. It's only happening to beat the record which is the tragedy of it all.

krudler

I have kind of a love hate thing with HHH, I really dont like how he's given the title whenever he wants it despite all his bashing of people who dont think about the business before themselves, but its impossible to deny his passion for the business and he seems like a genuine guy in interviews

Bubs101

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The difference though Bubs is that Kliq-style politics held Ric Flair back in latter years, whereas Kliq-style politics have catapulted Hunter to where he is today.

As has been pointed out earlier, Flair benifited massively from NWA politics to gain alot of his belts and by Kliq style politics you mean Bischoff didn't want him as a champion while he was making WCW a massive success then it was the right decision

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Hunter being a top draw is no big deal when he has the very means to ensure he is a top draw by virtue of his position.

There's a very big difference between being trusted due to your outstanding professionalism a la Flair, Foley and Taker, and being trusted because you are part of the family a la Triple H. It's pure nepotism.

Hunter earned his top role in the company before he married Steph. He was part of the greatest faction in recent WWE history and it went from strength to strength when Shawn left. He was given the ball and he ran with it. He had proven himself at European level, had proven himself at Intercontinental level and had the look and personality of a star. He earned his way to the top. He's won wrestler of the year before Steph in the Wrestling Observer awards and 3 feuds of the year.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It doesn't matter what the place of business is, whether it's WWE or McDonalds, if the distinction for most honours was to fall to the son-in-law of the boss then eyebrows would be raised and rightly so, particularly when said honours are acquired oh so cheaply.

No one would mind if Hunter's huge number of titles reflected merit but I don't believe it does, nor do I believe having the title belt on him is necessary. It's only happening to beat the record which is the tragedy of it all.

As I pointed out earlier as well, if your calling Hunter's wins cheap then Flair wins are just as bad. I don't see how the last one was cheap at all tbh. Also, as I said earlier, I don't think the titles mean as much after the Brand split because the talent pool is divided but you can't blame him for that

JohnMc1

Deleted User wrote: »

You may need to copy/paste it a few more times, then. Your post made no sense to me whatsoever.

I believe he's implying that Flair booked himself to most of his title reigns as well. So its silly to be trashing HHH for doing it but praising Flair for it.

Mr.Nice Guy

Bubs101 wrote: »

As has been pointed out earlier, Flair benifited massively from NWA politics to gain alot of his belts and by Kliq style politics you mean Bischoff didn't want him as a champion while he was making WCW a massive success then it was the right decision

No one has suggested he hasn't engaged in politics but did he earn his political stroke like the likes of Taker, Austin and Foley? I would say yes. Did Hunter earn his influence? I would say no. Why? Because it's through his family connections. By Kliq-style politics I mean the likes of Nash and Hall making him and the Horsemen look pathetic and not treating him with the respect that WWE did. A poor move on their part.

Bubs101 wrote:

Hunter earned his top role in the company before he married Steph. He was part of the greatest faction in recent WWE history and it went from strength to strength when Shawn left. He was given the ball and he ran with it. He had proven himself at European level, had proven himself at Intercontinental level and had the look and personality of a star. He earned his way to the top. He's won wrestler of the year before Steph in the Wrestling Observer awards and 3 feuds of the year.

He was also part of the Kliq, he also sat in at writer's meetings etc. This can't be airbrushed from history. Did he earn the right to be in the main event? Yes. Was he good for the spot given to him? Yes. Was he a great heel? Yes. However this doesn't justify him notching up reigns which for the most part were notched up when he was past his peak. I was a huge fan of his work up until 2002 when he went all mad with power.

Bubs101 wrote:

As I pointed out earlier as well, if your calling Hunter's wins cheap then Flair wins are just as bad. I don't see how the last one was cheap at all tbh. Also, as I said earlier, I don't think the titles mean as much after the Brand split because the talent pool is divided but you can't blame him for that

The difference though is that Hunter was deliberately collecting cheap wins to edge him nearer the number of Flair's wins.

It's kind of like a kid in class that gets 16 Valentine's Day cards. Maybe some of them were given out cheaply. But say the following year some big nosed kid with lots of facial hair says he is going to try and get 17 cards so kisses up to everyone in the class and ultimately achieves his goal.

Which to you was the better accomplishment? Or do you not see a difference? Because I sure do.

Bubs101

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

No one has suggested he hasn't engaged in politics but did he earn his political stroke like the likes of Taker, Austin and Foley? I would say yes. Did Hunter earn his influence? I would say no. Why? Because it's through his family connections. By Kliq-style politics I mean the likes of Nash and Hall making him and the Horsemen look pathetic and not treating him with the respect that WWE did. A poor move on their part.

Hunter's original influence came from the Cliq and he certainly earned that by taking the fall for Hall and Nash. As for his sway with Vince who knows when it started but my guess would be around the time he took over from HBK because D-X were too big not to have direct involvement

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

He was also part of the Kliq, he also sat in at writer's meetings etc. This can't be airbrushed from history. Did he earn the right to be in the main event? Yes. Was he good for the spot given to him? Yes. Was he a great heel? Yes. However this doesn't justify him notching up reigns which for the most part were notched up when he was past his peak. I was a huge fan of his work up until 2002 when he went all mad with power.

Flair was on the god damn booking commitee during a few of his reigns and has a notoriously high opinion of himself. If you think that Hunter went mad with power than the Nature Boy reached epic proportions

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The difference though is that Hunter was deliberately collecting cheap wins to edge him nearer the number of Flair's wins.

It's kind of like a kid in class that gets 16 Valentine's Day cards. Maybe some of them were given out cheaply. But say the following year some big nosed kid with lots of facial hair says he is going to try and get 17 cards so kisses up to everyone in the class and ultimately achieves his goal.

In all fairness that's a ridiculous analogy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Which to you was the better accomplishment? Or do you not see a difference? Because I sure do.

You see this is the thing MNG. I know for a fact you're in third year college and I'm pretty sure your in politics. We have very few mature students and they don't strike me as the type to spend nights arguing on message boards. I missed nearly all of Flair's reigns so I can't comment to much on them bar what I saw on the DVD and I'm pretty sure you can't either. He's built up a legendary aura around himself so very few people question that but they should.

Mr.Nice Guy

Bubs101 wrote: »

Hunter's original influence came from the Cliq and he certainly earned that by taking the fall for Hall and Nash. As for his sway with Vince who knows when it started but my guess would be around the time he took over from HBK because D-X were too big not to have direct involvement

I disagree that he earned his influence. He lived by the sword and he died by the sword. I will give him credit for coming through it though.

Bubs101 wrote:

Flair was on the god damn booking commitee during a few of his reigns and has a notoriously high opinion of himself. If you think that Hunter went mad with power than the Nature Boy reached epic proportions

I've read Flair's book. I know about the control he wielded. I didn't get the impression he had a high opinion of himself though. He was the guy people wanted in the spot. The same is not true of SuperHunter. If you think Flair abused his power moreso than Hunter then I disagree wholeheartedly.

Bubs101 wrote:

In all fairness that's a ridiculous analogy

It was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek analogy what with the recent Valentine's. I didn't realise this was such serious business!

Bubs101 wrote:

You see this is the thing MNG. I know for a fact you're in third year college and I'm pretty sure your in politics. We have very few mature students and they don't strike me as the type to spend nights arguing on message boards. I missed nearly all of Flair's reigns so I can't comment to much on them bar what I saw on the DVD and I'm pretty sure you can't either. He's built up a legendary aura around himself so very few people question that but they should.

I've read Flair's book, seen footage of his past and present matches, read comments on his life and seen him in the flesh. I have to draw my own conclusions on the man from all of that. Same goes for Hunter. If you're suggesting that you needed to live through Flair's reigns to forma view on him then I'd disagree. I didn't see George Best live for instance but I conclude he was better than Ronaldo (hope that analogy works )

At the end of the day it doesn't look like our views on this are going to be reconciled. We're obviously of completely different mindsets here. I've made my points and people can think of them what they want. One thing I will agree with you on though:

Bubs101 wrote:

We have very few mature students

You're dead right there, mate.