I finally sat through a full Ric Flair match from 1988 and it took over an hour to appreciate

I put on that Flair vs. Sting Clash of the Champions match last night thinking it'd be a quick watch, but between all the holds and the elbow drops I kept pausing to look up old promos... 45 minutes of actual bell time felt like 90. Anyone else find it tough to get through those long classic matches without fast forwarding?

2 comments

2 Comments

christopherj638d ago

Disagree completely honestly. That 1988 match you mentioned is actually the perfect pace for telling a story in the ring and I get why people call it a masterpiece. Flair knew how to milk every second of that time like he was squeezing an orange for juice. The whole point of those long matches was to build drama slowly so by the time the third figure four leglock came around you were supposed to feel exhausted right along with them. I watched the Flair vs Steamboat trilogy and never once felt like hitting skip because every chinlock and headlock was selling the bigger picture of who wanted it more. Speed through the slow parts and you miss the tiny tells like Flair grabbing the ropes when the ref wasn't looking or Sting shaking out his arm after a chop. That's the stuff that makes the payoff hit harder than any modern spotfest.

the_joseph8d ago

Wait hold on, you actually made it through a full Ric Flair 88 match in one sitting? That's wild man, I could never do that without drifting off or checking my phone every five minutes. Three figure four leglocks in one match? By the second one I'd be screaming at the screen to just switch it up already. Your point about the chinlocks building drama makes sense in theory but in practice my eyes start glazing over watching two guys roll around on the mat for 45 minutes. I need at least a couple high spots or a table spot to keep my brain from checking out. The slow burn stuff just kills my attention span dead.