The Thread Killer

That would be because there is no logical point being made.

Outstanding. Thank you so much for this.

Along those lines, joeg mentions Pat Patterson. Patterson (to the best of my knowledge) was accused of two things - sexual harassment, and child molestation. Some people have claimed that guys like Steve Lombardi, Virgil and one of the guys in La Resistance got or kept their jobs by doing sexual favors for Patterson. There has never been any proof of this, and I have never been convinced that some of those rumors weren't due to the fact that Patterson was openly gay in an incredibly homophobic industry. Bottom line is, he was never charged with anything. The sexual molestation charges were proven to be untrue. Billy Graham talks about this at length in his autobiography. Those allegations were fabricated but taken seriously because of allegations of a similar nature against Terry Garvin and Mel Phillips at the exact same time. I do not believe Pat Patterson is a child molester and I'm not entirely convinced he's guilty of sexual harassment either. Even though nobody cares what people say about a guy on a messageboard on the internet, I don't think it's fair to lump a guy like Patterson in when talking about Benoit. It's not in the same ballpark...it's not even the same game.

Exactly. I assume what overbooked meant was moral "disconnect" because I do have moral discontent from the Benoit murders, hence my argument. Either way, the argument that you can't enjoy virtually any match if you don't emotionally distance yourself from the product due to the industry's moral issues and early deaths, makes no sense. Wrestling is scripted and predetermined unlike a sporting event. However, Pro Wrestling requires the fan to buy into the story and eventual outcome as part of that process - especially in North America where the emphasis is on the story. Does that not require emotional investment of some kind? Or should I watch every match with the attitude: "Most wrestlers are morally questionable people, many of whom die early - therefore I am going to emotionally disconnect myself from this match and only view it on an analytical level?"

Ditto. I've heard some really, really sleazy stories. So what? I can't stand moral relativism. Firstly, even if every allegation against other wrestlers in this thread is true, that doesn't make what Benoit did any less morally wrong, or him any more deserving of any type of acclaim. If the world made any logical sense, when you murder your wife and son, you forfeit respect and admiration in the eyes of society. For example, Paul Bernardo recently wrote and self published a novel. It might turn out to be the greatest written book since War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy, but I'll never know because I have no intention of reading it. Why? Because people like that don't deserve attention, respect or admiration. Should people honestly be expected to judge the "artistic" work of somebody who is that morally reprehensible? Is that really the argument some people are making here, that we should be able to emotionally detach ourselves and judge the work without considering the source? Secondly, I am puzzled by the idea of lumping all wrong doing into one big category. On one end we have guys like Carlos Colon and Pat Patterson, who might not have even done anything wrong at all...there are just rumors and allegations. On the other end, we have guys like Benoit, Snuka and Jose Gonzalez who have been pretty much proven to have committed the act of murder - although Gonzalez was acquitted and Snuka has not yet been found guilty. Are people honestly making the argument that all wrestlers are sleazy to some degree, and since that is the case, we as fans are in no position to judge them or differentiate the levels of sleaze, therefore they should all be judged based solely on their wrestling abilities alone? Alleged sexual harassment, DUI, murder...all the same thing. Who are we to judge? Since we can't say one is worse than the other, may as well forget all of them! There aren't two sides to this argument. There isn't an argument. Killing your wife and son is a bad thing to do, and if you do it you don't deserve any respect of any kind. Period.

One thing that has always bothered me is wrestling fans who smugly state "I can still watch Chris Benoit's matches objectively" as if that is some sort of accomplishment, or that it makes them in some way superior to people who chose not to. Chris Benoit brutally murdered his own wife and son. This is a fact. As much as I love Pro Wrestling, I can't take any enjoyment from anything done by a person who murdered a child. It makes me uncomfortable, and to be perfectly blunt, I don't really give a shit where he might rank on a list of other wrestlers. What he did makes him a person I don't want to look at or give any attention to. He's not on my list because he is unworthy of any form of respect or discussion, in my opinion. He gave up his claim to any sort of acclaim when he murdered his family.

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement which has virtually no basis in reality. Misawa ignored his doctor's advice, and died in the ring due to an unavoidable injury. Colon (in partnership with Victor Jovica) at worst, is alleged to have pressured his employee Jose Gonzales (who he most likely did not know was homicidal due to mental illness brought on by the recent death of his 6 year old daughter) into "dealing with" Bruiser Brody. There is virtually no proof that Colon had any idea whatsoever that Gonzalez would kill Brody, and Brody's family and friends don't claim that Colon or Jovica had anything to do with it. Any allegations to the contrary are pure speculation with no foundation in fact. Chris Benoit murdered his wife and son. How you can draw any sort of comparison between those three incidents and claim they are in any way similar is quite frankly, baffling. All three incidents involve death, I suppose. That's about it.

Andre had a long history of being un-cooperative with guys who pissed him off or who he didn't like for whatever reason. I don't think many people who have been following wrestling for any amount of time -- by which I mean heard more than 4-5 shoots interviews with guys from that era -- seriously have an image of Andre as a gentle giant. I saw a hilarious interview with Sabu where somebody asked him about Andre and his response was "Fuck that guy. He was an asshole." The interviewer was shocked and pointed out all the people who thought Andre was great to be around, and this and that. Sabu pointed out that because Andre used to work for his Uncle, he saw the guy a million times growing up, and Andre apparently treated people like shit and pushed them around. Sabu claimed that Andre treated other wrestlers (who he liked) okay, but he treated staff at the arenas and other people like total shit. If I am not mistaken, Heenan talks about the same thing in his second book, the fact that Andre hated being around people because they always stared at him and bothered him, and he generally treated people pretty poorly unless you were one of his close friends.

Fuck me, for the level of analysis this project has spawned this post might be the most airhead simplification I have ever read. My post outlined clearly why this particular chop exchange, in this particular contest, at this particular time, was a spot done for specific reasons, for escalation, to convey defiance and guts, to add a sense of epic exhaustion and whip the crowd into a frenzy. I am not saying it was brilliant, I am saying it had a purpose and was not done out of a lack of creativity or idleness. If you can't see the different between that exchange, and a WWE main event based around punch exchanges that have no rhyme or rhythm, serve little purpose except to kill time and are inherently lazy...well, there is zero point in having a discussion on the subject. I am not saying either viewpoint is correct, but saying this is a simple case of double standards is utterly reductionist, since the two examples are so vastly different. Kobashi/Sasaki is a match that builds, has varies sections, has bombs and moonsaults and suplexes character work and structure - the chop exchange is a small, memorable part of it. How can you possibly compare it to a situation where the strike exchanges are the entire match? I actually quite liked the Kobashi/Sasaki match - for what it was. But the million chops were a bit goofy, no? Similar to the Joe vs. Kobashi match. In a sense, these matches reminded me of Rock/Hogan, in that the molten reaction from the crowd played a massive part in the match itself. If the fans had sat on their hands, I think that match would have been viewed and remembered totally different. I love Kenta Kobashi, and I have him ranked in my Top 10, but I remember thinking at the time of the Kobashi/Sasaki match that if only we could have seen 1993 Kobashi against 2000 Sasaki, we would have been seeing an entirely different match with entirely different psychology. Kobashi HAD to do the match with a thousand chops. Let's be honest, by 2005 Kobashi was pretty much a shell of his former self, and he could barely walk to the ring or even hang his arms at his side, let alone do what he used to be able to do in the ring. The fact that Kobashi was still able to pull out the odd classic at that point in his career was, to me, a testament to his love of Pro Wrestling, his hard work, and his unwillingness to walk away from the sport. I agree with your post regarding the psychology behind the "chop-fest" but I also maintain he had little choice but to resort to that style - he had little else in the tank at that point. I think he should be commended for structuring a big match like that around his physical limitations.

I was really shocked that Low Ki ranked as high as he did, and I say that as a fan of his work in early ROH, I never would have guessed he had the body of work to rank anywhere near that high. He is not on my list. But hey, I guess some people saw things I didn't, in terms of footage and longevity. Also + 1 points for the usage of the phrase "self-serious ponce."

I get that but a little harshness is part of the deal. I don't see it verging into incivility very often. And the tone is so much gentler than it was in earlier days of internet wrestling discussion. I remember reading the Smarkschoice threads and my god there were some vicious exchanges. This. No one has told anyone in seriousness to drink bleach in this thread. No one has started a separate thread suggesting that a specific poster has a mental illness. If someone mentions a poster that hasn't been around in a while, no one else has responded that they hope they are somewhere in a hospital bed dying of AIDS. All of those things happened as part of the 2006 countdown. Michael Elgin hasn't appeared on the list yet, has he? Because if he does, then I reserve the right to... Okay, not really. I have now lost 39 of the names from my Top 100, before we have reached the Top 100. Today's eliminations were not kind to my list.

I'm still getting over the shock of the revelation that Adam Rose has used drugs. This is coming out of left field, I need to lie down with a cold cloth on my head. Nothing in the world makes sense anymore.

I dunno, BIRPITHORAAF is surprisingly easy to say. Thank you so much. I just laughed so hard Dr. Pepper went up my nose.

This X 1000. I have been a Motorhead fan my entire life. When I saw the documentary "Lemmy" I realized that Trips was as big a fan as I. And Trips did a ton for Lemmy and Motorhead. And Lemmy loved Trips. And with apologies to Austin Aries, Lemmy was the Greatest Person Who Ever Lived. So if Triple H loved Motorhead, and Lemmy loved Trips, there is no possible way Trips can be all bad. Lemmy really was one of the most real, authentic people ever. Seeing Lemmy and Trips talk about each other in various interviews, and seeing Trips give his eulogy at Lemmy's funeral made me like Trips a lot more as a human being. Does that mean Trips deserved to be in the Top 100? No. But it was interesting to me. And if you don't like Motorhead and you don't understand Lemmy? Well, I don't mean to be judgmental, but you deserve to get some sort of open sores all over your body which continue to worsen until you eventually expire in agony. And your last words should be "I was wrong about Lemmy. Please play "Killed By Death" at my funeral." There, I said it.

I'm suing Michael Hayes for that picture and I'm naming Grimmas as an accomplice for causing me mental pain and anguish. It's going to take a lot of therapy and medication to get that image out of my brain. Screw you guys.

At this point, I am becoming convinced there is going to be nuclear Armageddon. After which, Keith Richards will buy and continue to run TNA.

in fact... can we still turn in ballots for tag team? Please in fact... can we still turn in ballots for tag team? Please That would be awesome. I was too focused on the singles to really take a crack at tag teams. in fact... can we still turn in ballots for tag team? Please That would be awesome. I was too focused on the singles to really take a crack at tag teams. Thirded. And... Andrei Kopylov got 4 votes ? Wow. That's quite amazing. RINGS fans somewhere. I would like to...uh...fourth this request. If the Tag Ballot is being put off until May, can we still vote on it, please?

I voted for the Sheik based primarily on his work with Abdullah against The Funks in Japan, and on a more peripheral level based on some of his other brawls in Japan throughout the years. He pretty much single-handedly ruled Toronto from 70-78, headlining every Maple Leaf Gardens show and having some semi-historic matches with Andre The Giant as well. Of course, he also owned Detroit (literally) for years as well. He influenced countless "garbage wrestlers" who came afterward. Of course, he couldn't wrestle for shit, he wouldn't do a job to save his life, and he was a delusional weirdo outside the ring (insisting his own family refer to him as The Sheik, including his wife.) The Breaking Kayfabe shoot with Sabu sheds some interesting light on his famous uncle, and the book I have linked in my signature also goes as far behind the curtain with The Sheik as anybody was ever going to get. If I recall correctly, I had The Sheik in my bottom 20 on my list. I readily agree there are plenty of valid arguments for him not being on anybody's list, but for my money he was influential, memorable and despite the imitators there will never be another like him. I just couldn't leave him off my list, for sentimental reasons if nothing else.

Testify. I went back and re-watched the Vader vs. Takada matches from UWF-I and both ended up going up my list after. i forgot how much I loved those matches and how great both guys were in them.

I voted for Brody. He's not in my Top 50, but I voted for him. Just because I don't think he's as great as Dave Meltzer and Larry Matysik do, doesn't mean I don't like him or think he was great at some things. I thought about it long and hard, and the bottom line is that his lack of selling isn't a big deal for me as it is to a lot of other people. I certainly don't rate him as highly as I would have 10-15 years ago, but I am still a fan. I am guessing I will probably end up being the high vote for Sabu, and possibly Jeff Jarrett, especially since I am betting he got very few votes. I know he didn't get totally blanked. As with Brody, Jarrett hardly made the upper class of my list, but he did make it.

You hate them, Will? I can't understand what makes a man hate another man. Help me understand. Charles, that post was outstanding. One of the best wrestling related essays I have read online in a very, very long time. If not ever.

Mine is in. It is now 3:45 am my time, and I have to get up for work in less than two hours. But I knew I wouldn't have time to vote before the deadline (why is opening day for the Toronto Blue Jays the same day as Wrestlemania?) and I wasn't going to let this deadline pass without submitting a ballot. Looking forward to the results. Now I am going to have a nap.

I'm in the exact same boat as you. In Canada, we get to pay more for the Network, but on the plus side, we get LESS content! I ordered it for the Hall of Fame, and Wrestlemania, plus NXT. It pretty much pays for itself with that, plus the Podcasts and other specials, but having no On Demand content sucks.

It sure changed my mind about Hayes. I used to think he was a drunk, racist moron. Now I think he's delusional drunk racist moron, who dresses like Jack Nicholson in Batman. JBL jumped all over the place with his questions, but even worse was Michael Hays claiming that back in the 70's and 80's the Confederate Flag wasn't considered the racist symbol that it is today...that's a recent thing. He actually had the balls to act somewhat puzzled about people thinking he was racist, like JBL had to explain it to him, then he understood. Oh, and he only used "The N Word" because he used to listen to a lot of Richard Pryor albums, so he thought it was okay for people to call each other that. And when he did use it with Mark Henry, he was drunk. And by the way, he's not racist, because he has a black daughter. Well, not black, half-black. Well, she wasn't his daughter, she was his second wife's daughter, from a previous marriage. And she never lived with them when he was with his second wife. And he and his second wife are not together anymore. But he still has a good relationship with her daughter. So...not racist, see? Michael Hays came across as staggeringly disingenuous and self-deluded to me in this interview. He's one of those old timers who is such a carny I think he's actually conned himself into believing some of his own bullshit. We won't even get into the bizarre "If David Von Erich had lived, Fritz might have beat Vince McMahon to nation expansion" theory that he and JBL discussed, or his bizarre answers on the Gino Hernandez questions. "I don't believe he overdosed, but I'm not saying he was murdered, but I'm not saying anything else, no matter how many times you ask."

In my situation, it's more of a case of "what are other people seeing that I'm not?" A couple of years ago, that movie Birdman with Michael Keaton came out. It got very good reviews and a bunch of people I know saw it and raved about it. So I saw it, and didn't like it one little bit. The problem wasn't with the movie, it was that I had heard so much positive going in, my expectations were probably unreasonably high. New Day and Kevin Owens tend to get a lot of love in the so-called "IWC." When I watched RAW, I really couldn't see the appeal. Still can't, but at least now thanks to this thread, I know other people agree with me.