The Seventh Dimension 02.15.08: Flair Enough

Posted by T.G. Corke on 02.15.2008

Ric Flair is soon to draw the curtain on his illustrious career, and he's looking to do so with one final defeat. But who will land the role of subjugator? We shall probably know by the beginning of next week, but let's have a quick prediction contest first. Plus, a few brief thoughts on TNA's latest offerings.



It shall come as no surprise to anybody who regularly reads from this site – or, indeed, watches wrestling – that Ric Flair is set to retire within the next couple of months. Technically, since he has a match at No Way Out on Sunday, his career could be over by next week. However, nobody (including myself) is giving Kennedy a chance of making this possibility a reality, so the likelihood is higher than Winehouse that Flair's final match shall come at Wrestlemania.

So if that's the scenario we're looking at, who will be given the honour of defeating him? Well, there are three big favourites in my opinion, who I shall now study. Then, I shall look at a further quartet of less-likely contenders that I feel could benefit from the distinction. Finally, I shall decide on who I believe should be the man to close the book on Ric Flair's legacy.

Flair Enough

Likely Candidate #1: Shawn Michaels
The man that most would like to see do the business, and it's difficult to argue against it. Shawn Michaels has never had a bad match at Wrestlemania, and bear in mind that includes contests with Tatanka and Vince McMahon. He's had two matches at the event that have been rated ***** by Dave Meltzer, which is unheard of, and another few that rank above **** in most peoples' estimations. This isn't about star ratings, though. This is about how to tell the best possible story for the climax of Flair's career. And Shawn Michaels is probably the safest bet in that department. He can heel it up as well as anyone in the business, while still remaining believable and respectful. His feud and match with Hogan at Summerslam 2005 proves that. Michaels and Flair are two of the best actors in the industry, and the sparring beforehand would make the pay-off epic as hell, as well as the after-match hug that is a certainty for these two.

Another good reason for this match is that Shawn's win/loss record at Wrestlemania is surprisingly unimpressive. I think he's only won three times there – 1996, 2003 and 2006. Granted, Flair's record is no better, at one from four (and that win was in a handicap match, where his team had the advantage and Flair didn't get the pin). But that angle could add some intrigue. "They've given their all for the business, but statistically they've underachieved on the biggest stage of them all. This year, something has to give." However, I'd probably just ignore this facet of information. It's not really relevant.

The only big reason I can think of for not having this match, which is also a reason TO have this match depending how you look at it, is that Flair and Michaels have already faced each other one-on-one on several occasions. Most of them have been on the House Show circuit, including a series of matches that reputedly lasted over forty minutes each, but they also fought at Bad Blood 2003. However, Flair won this match (and with help from Randy Orton), so that possibly adds more heat to the final result of Michaels avenging the loss in the most heartbreaking (no pun intended) manner imaginable.

Of all the possibilities, Michaels/Flair would be the biggest spectacle. No wonder so many of you are looking forward to it.

ODDS OF HAPPENING: Evens

Likely Candidate #2: John Cena
The man I've been backing ever since it was announced that he'd be headling No Way Out instead of Wrestlemania. Although I have listed Michaels as the odds-on favourite (due to the fact that most believe it will be him, and I don't know what else he'd do), I'm going out on a limb and saying that Cena has as good a chance if the WWE are willing to take a risk.

At the moment, it is considered almost a cinch that Cena/Triple H II will be closing ‘Mania. However, in a situation like this it's not unusual for the WWE to shake thing up and trick us. It keeps us on our toes and gives the show a more unpredictable feeling. Plus, the champion we're talking about is Randy Orton who, like Cena, is on the verge right now of becoming something very, very special. Going into Wrestlemania, and having only previously defeated Cena via disqualification, Orton needs the belt more than Cena does – even if it means doing the job to Triple H.

So why should Cena defeat Flair? Because I can't think of another possible match for Ric that 1) hasn't been done before, 2) would have tremendous build and promo work from both men, 3) would work the audience into a frenzy, and 4) would be a genuine "passing of the torch" moment when Cena makes Flair tap out to the STF-U. The third of those four points is, of course, the one major downside as well – that fans may shit on the result because Cena won again. But I think the WWE would be prepared for this, especially after what happened at Wrestlemania X-8 with Hogan and The Rock. Turn Cena into a frustrated and ruthless tweener who wants to get another feather in his cap, but ultimately outlasts Flair in a clean finish. Handshake, applause and Cena continues his journey as before, with a 5-0 undefeated streak at the Big Dance to boot.

That's what I'd book, anyway. It's a win-win situation as a legend of the past shamelessly comes up short to the current franchise, while Orton maintains his momentum even in defeat in the title match. It freshens things up but keeps things strong for the future.

ODDS OF HAPPENING: 2/1

Likely Candidate #3: Batista
Of all the forecasts I've seen for this match, the one I have been absolutely dumbfounded to have NOT seen, or at least not regularly, is for Batista.

Batista and Ric Flair have a good amount of history together. They were members of Evolution and had a couple of World Tag Team Championship reigns as a tandem. When Batista turned on Triple H, Flair stuck by The Game and came up on the losing end as a consequence. Then, Flair was traded to Smackdown! and, in a role-reversal, Batista almost became Flair's mentor instead of the other way around. Although they have not interacted with each other for many months, there is natural tension between them that most of those watching will be fully aware of and bite on.

Speaking of Evolution, two of the guys who have thus far failed to end Flair's career are Triple H and Randy Orton. Having Batista get it done would be great continuity, because it would justify his decision to disband from the faction in the first place. And, with Randy Orton vs. Triple H (and possibly John Cena) being my projected WWE Championship match for the evening, what a delightful symmetry it would be for all four former members to be against one another for very different reasons. Plus, much like with Michaels, I don't really see what else Batista will do at Wrestlemania. It's highly unlikely that he's winning the Chamber, so I'm guessing an inter-promotional match of some kind, with Cena, Michaels and Orton being other possible candidates to face The Animal. But of all the options available for him, none would give him as significant a long-term boost and have such repercussions as a victory over Flair.

Batista/Flair would not be of the same ‘Icon vs. Icon' pedigree that Michaels/Flair would provide, nor would it be the same "Changing of the Guard" scenario as Flair/Cena. But it would be somewhere in-between, as the most prolific World Champion in history takes on the man who has held that Big Gold Belt three times in the last three years and is probably in his prime right now. The chemistry would most likely be of a very high standard, and you know Batista would rise to the challenge and give Flair a send-off to remember. It's the least likely of the three in my opinion, but I'd love to see it.

ODDS OF HAPPENING: 3/1

If I was a gambler, I would bet my life on one of those three being correct. But what of the also-rans? The minnows? The underdogs? Well, I can think of four more that might have an outside shot of causing the upset.

Dark Horse #1: Randy Orton
This hinges on whether or not Orton retains at No Way Out. If he loses the title to Cena, Orton obviously needs to get his heat back in some way. The best way of repaying the debt would be to have him go over Flair, or perhaps beating Batista as I mentioned above. However, I can't see Orton being excluded from the WWE title match at Wrestlemania. On top of that, Orton was the first man to attempt to end Flair's career in this angle, and they've fought on pay-per-view before as well as multiple occasions on television. So, there's really no need for Orton to get this. As I said, if Orton DOES end up omitted from the ‘Mania main-event, I have no problem with him beating Flair. But I simply feel he should have bigger fish to fry at this moment in time.

ODDS OF HAPPENING: 9/2

Dark Horse #2: Ken Kennedy
We've all written him off, and it's highly unlikely that he's going to make this column absolutely void by ending it all on Sunday. However, if the heat can remain good enough for long enough, I can honestly see a rematch being booked with Kennedy picking up the win. Some people would like to see MVP get the rematch instead, but anything other than MVP losing his United States Championship to a returning Matt Hardy at Wrestlemania will be an over-whelming disappointment for a lot of fans. Besides, he not only lost clean but he lost weeks ago. It wouldn't be fair for him to get another bite of the cherry now. I don't think Kennedy will get the rematch, either – he's more likely to be in Money In The Bank again, and get in a feud with the winning Jeff Hardy as a way of rebuilding him for another shot at the World title picture. But it's not the most unthinkable thing.

ODDS OF HAPPENING: 6/1

Dark Horse #3: CM Punk
I'm sure there are many who would love to see this, and while I can't see it happening, I can understand why it's so sought-after. First of all, CM Punk may be getting screwed out of the ECW Championship on Sunday, which would both give him a way out of that title scene for a couple of months (whether or not Chavo has any plans for Wrestlemania, I don't know), AND provide a believable catalyst for creating enough aggravation for Punk that he could conceivably add some heat to a feud between himself and Flair. Either that, or they could just as easily have a face vs. face dynamic, as it's not really an issue these days. It would also be repayment of sorts for the Benoit fiasco last year, as we not only missed out on a potentially classic match but had Punk bypassed to the title he was a challenger for by Johnny Nitro. However, despite his popularity and experience, I don't think Punk is actually ready yet to benefit from the rub of retiring Ric Flair. But who knows, in a few years maybe he'll retire Shawn Michaels.

ODDS OF HAPPENING: 10/1

Dark Horse #4: Mick Foley
This is not going to transpire, and of the seven I've looked at, this is the least productive choice. A part-time wrestler in what is likely the year of HIS departure going over somebody who's already on his way out is not going to lead to anything afterwards. It would be as useless as Hogan/Austin – good for the show itself, but what's the fucking point? You can't hold anyone's interest any further than "hey, look at this! It's good!" That works for the smarks, but a lot of marks will be wondering why the hell they should care. Especially since Flair already defeated Foley twice in 2006. However, that's also why it might happen. We kind of anticipated that Foley would win one of their matches back then, and he didn't. The end of their ‘I Quit' match at Summerslam left a bad taste in some peoples' mouths. The match was good, though, and that might persuade WWE that a third match is the way to go. Foley/Flair would, particularly if very violent, be a great one to see. But it would not, in any way whatsoever, be what's right for business.

ODDS OF HAPPENING: 25/1

So, with all of that in mind, who do I believe will end Ric Flair's career? And, more to the point, who should do it? Well, you'll see in the Roundtable that I said Cena was my bet, and he represents the same ethic and respect for the industry, as well as consistency, that Flair has proudly exhibited throughout his career. Cena vs. Flair would free up the WWE Championship match for Randy Orton, who deserves the opportunity to tear it up against Triple H once more as reward for his excellent work since May last year. It would also supply a new adversary for Ric, which would be a great way to go out.

However, Michaels is still head and shoulders above all other prospects from an individual perspective. Whether or not he would profit from the victory as much as Cena or even Batista, Michaels is the one man on the roster that nobody would feel bad for defeating the Nature Boy. Meanwhile, Flair/Batista would perhaps have the weakest work-rate, but it has existing heat due to their background. Any three would be a worthy conqueror, but smart money would have to go on the Heartbreak Kid.

Ric Flair has fostered the most tremendous legacy in this quasi-sport and, although he's been way off his game in terms of stability for the last few years, it's sad to see him go. But let's not be too somber. Far too often these days, a fantastic talent never even reaches the stage where he can no longer go at the same level, and never enjoys retirement. Ric Flair's final match – as a still-passionate, and relatively healthy, 58 year-old – should be treated as a celebration, not as a tearjerker.

And, like the professional he is, he's bound to go all-out to make sure his vanquisher will be seen in a similar regard.

TNA Titbits

Against All Odds (pun intended), TNA put on a pretty good pay-per-view this week. Some of the crap was still there – for instance the Drinking Championship being treated as more important than many of the actual championships, and the interference at the end of the World title match that really shouldn't have taken place since the exact same thing happened last month as well. However, most of the action itself was good fun. It's good to see Lethal pretty much win the match on his own, but in a way that doesn't make his opponents look like shit.

I'm not a big fan of the booking for the tapings, though. The Dudleys' weight-limit angle isn't a bad idea, some good comedy to be had. But they've made a couple of really questionable decisions. One: Why did they pretend that Brother Ray was able to get within the limit one week, but Devon wasn't? Not only is this an insult to the intelligence of those who know full well that Ray's over 30lbs heavier than Devon in kayfabe (and actually 50lbs heavier in real life), but is it going to be explained how the two are yo-yoing in such a way? Why not just have the humour come from Bubba's attempts to diet? And surely nobody is going to be stupid enough to believe that Bubba could lose a MINIMUM of 35lbs in just eleven storyline days (and two actual ones). Mistake Two: Why did they each individually still win handicap matches? Curry Man and Shark Boy are worthless, I know this, but if the idea is to humiliate the Dudleys in some way as punishment for trying to destroy the X-Division, surely it would be better to LOSE matches where they're at a disadvantage? At least they had to win by using the scales.

And isn't it sad how nobody gave a fuck that Samoa Joe took another pinfall loss? Not only that, but he took the pinfall to protect KEVIN NASH. Joe's star has faded quicker than I can use the Alpha filter on Flash MX.

Rubbish Youtube Quote of the Week~!

From ‘TNA: Footage From Against All Odds'

Denisisagod
What is up with Tomko? WTF WWE cant beat TNA PPV's each one of TNA's PPV is awsome and 5 stars

Ignoring the pathetic (yet, due to the sad nature of the Youtube beast, not even approaching the worst) spelling, punctuation and grammar utilised in this text, let's take a look at all of this. First of all, the comment "What is up with Tomko?" is obviously the sign that this user is a mark. That's enough to make me cry, considering that he's listed as being 51 years old in his profile (though, clearly, he isn't. He's probably about 14 and didn't want to get mocked, so I'll cut him a break there. Then again, a teenager shouldn't be illiterate either, so he still fails at life). Next, why the hell was ‘WTF' necessary? Imagine if I employed that phrase while actually, like, talking. "What the fuck, WWE can't beat TNA pay-per-views." Out of nowhere. I started the conversation, and I started it with a phrase that is almost universally termed as a response. Whatever next? "Hell no, I like eskimoes"?

And then, there's the ridiculous nature of the statement itself. No matter how much you like TNA or dislike WWE, to blindly declare that WWE's product is somehow inferior to TNA's – and, even MORE galling, that TNA is somehow infallible and devoid of fault – is not only erroneous but is actually damaging your own perception. I mean, we have enough of this in society already. It's called religion (and no, I'm not saying that religion is necessarily wrong since I can't prove it, but it certainly shouldn't apply to the tangibles of law and politics. Just thought I'd get that in, as I don't want to risk offending people that I'm in no way targeting). I can fucking do without this similar kind of "wrong only affects other people" stance when it comes to the entertainment medium, thank you. And besides, if you're such a mark that you've actually fooled yourself into believing such a throng of bullshit, then why the heck are you still using the fucking STAR SYSTEM?!? What an idiot. I got progressively more and more angry as I wrote about that comment. I guess the joke's on me, really.

Wrestlelife

The Matter: Remember I had a dream not long ago where CM Punk's character was French? Well, I had another crazy one at the end of last week. This time, Great Khali came down the ramp, and his entrance video had really upbeat cheesy trumpet music in the waltz signature (a bit like Bobby Heenan's, but more infectious). Then, when he got into the ring, Kate Thornton was there. She interviewed Khali in Punjabi, yet Khali himself spoke in perfectly eloquent English. And the audience loved him! Anyway, it turned out he'd been "eliminated from wrestling", so they showed a ‘Best Bits' video. Usually when this happens, you see the video full-screen with a small box in the bottom-left corner showing the contestant watching their own footage and their reaction to it. This time, ALL I saw was Khali, laughing away as he relived all those special moments that I wasn't allowed to view for myself. Why? Why does this happen? And why do I remember it so vividly? JR and Jerry Lawler stood up and applauded afterwards, as if they were judges. I think I forced myself to wake up at "Simon Ross". Ugh.

But there's no respite! Since then, I've also had a bunch of messed up dreams about Benoit, which is weird since I never had these seven months ago when they'd actually be relevant. Just last night, I dreamt he used Triple H's entrance music and his video started with him wearing a nice shirt and playing his own drums with the craziest, most energic expression imaginable that would put Angus Young to shame. Then he came out as the number 30 entrant in the Royal Rumble and was cheered and hugged on his way to the ring – even though members of the crowd were holding signs saying "you are a murderer, Chris Benoit". Then, he proceeded to defeat Kurt Angle and Mark Henry in a triple-threat Best-of-19 Falls Match for the 'World Title Championship', followed by an 'In loving memory' caption at the bottom of the screen – but with Sting's picture on it! What the shit! Too much coffee, me feels. Or maybe I'm just brilliant. Yeah, I'll use that.

The Link: Well, it's already about wrestling. I thought that would be enough, somehow. How naïve of me.

Feeder Readback

A couple of emails this week. Strangely, neither made reference to my column on Bobby Lashley last week. I got tons of comments on it (well, a few), many of which criticised me for "disguising hatred as apathy". I can assure you all that my intention was anything but. I do not hate Lashley in the slightest, and I think as an athlete that he gets far too much stick, although I never really cared for him either. That said, he comes across as an idiot in his attitude. And I like to mock stupidity in these pages. It's as simple as that.

But back to the letters. We'll start off with a rather unsettling one from Jim. Just Jim.

I'm 67. How old are you?
The reason I ask this is because when I read your column I get the vision of a very young man.

Since there was nothing more within the body of this text, I've spent many a sleepless night wondering what was meant by this. Was it supposed to be a compliment? Or an insult? I'd guess an insult, like saying my philosophies are symptomatic of the new breed of fan and are therefore not as well-versed as somebody with more experience. But I don't know. I just…I don't have it in me to work it out. I'm Jimmy White.

Luckily, later in the week I got a slightly more easy read from occasional contributer Weng Yu.

Hi T.G, good to see that you seem to be enjoying your writing once again. Hope it continues.

Anyway, bit late as this may be, but after reading "The Doyle Grumble" and watching Smackdown last week, a few things occured to me.

Pretty much every unjustified criticism of Cena can also be applied to a big main eventer on Smackdown, i.e the Deacon, a.k.a the one and only Batista. A brief analysis.

1) Cena is crap on the mic and just shouts.

Batista isn't exactly hot stuff is he? Mostly its the usual angry promo about how he's the Animal and will destroy xyz opponent. However, he truly sucks when watching matches at ringside with the commentators. I don't think he's ever said a full sentence of more than five words in one go.

2) Cena is a steroid monkey and freakishly strong.

Batista is freakishly strong and has had waaaay more injuries than Cena. Hmmm....

3) Cena can't wrestle and always uses the "Five moves of Doom".

Batista only seems to have "Three moves of Doom", the Spinebuster, Spear, and the Batista Bomb. Add to that turnbuckle shoulder thrust, and the occasional running powerslam, and you have even more limited moveset than Cena.

4) Cena can only wrestle gimmick matches.

Aren't all of Batista's best matches gimmick matches?

5) Cena has been overpushed by WWE.

This is pretty much the only one which you can't really apply to Batista. Although upon reflection, he was in nearly every SD main event on PPV for nearly all of last year (to be fair, this wasn't all on him, since there were so many injuries). And he did win his first world title after three years in the biz, which is the same as Cena. Then again he's not had the superman reign.

Although most of these stupid statements can be countered with the same arguments that can be applied to Cena, there is one that definitely can't which is that Batista is better in the ring than Cena. Clearly, it should be obvious to all that Cena can now wrestle great matches with pretty much anybody, which is something that definitely cannot be applied to Batista. So why aren't the smarks hating on Big Dave like they are on Cena? Surely it can't be because it would be totally unreasonable and not really make much sense to hate on Batista when he has had some pretty good matches over the past couple of years....?

Peace.

I think there are quite a lot of smarks who hate Batista. It's just that they're never in attendance at the shows. Batista hatred seems confined to the internet. I definitely agree that a lot of the same 'arguments' could be applied to Batista, but again they can easily be countered (apart from, perhaps, the steroid thing). Pretty much everyone in the ring has a sequence of moves they use to end a match, not even a Benoit or an Angle would give you something utterly unique every time out. Maybe Batista's injury in 2006 was a good thing for him, as it meant he didn't have the chance to dominate Smackdown! in the same way Cena dominated Raw. I guess that's why he's given more respect. Personally, I think both are very capable and have had great matches, last year especially. I'd say Cena has more ability, but he is younger and more mobile so it's to be expected. But Batista's one of the better powerhouse wrestlers of the last decade. I like them both, and I expect to see them both reside in the WWE Hall of Fame in about twenty years time.

Oooh, yeah!

Another article ends, and perhaps from the ashes of the ever-nearing phoenix we call ‘No Way Out' another column shall be born. If not, I'm sure I'll think of something. I might review WWF Attitude for the Playstation sometime soon, that game's been really playing on my mind lately despite having not played it in many years.

Toodles!

XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX