The Thread Killer

I have a question... Michael Elgin is listed as a nominee in the nominee folder. His name does not appear on this list as having received zero votes. His name is also not listed on Woof's master list of the Honorable Mentions. He didn't appear in the first 50 votes of the Top 100, unless I missed it. Since there is no way he could have received enough votes to make the top 50, what happened to him? I only ask because if he did make the Top 50, I need to go and buy a bazooka, so I can shoot myself in the face.

I have a ton of shoot style stuff on VHS in a box in my crawl space, covered in dust. I've got UWF, UWF-I, Pancrase, KINGDOM and even the first bunch of U-Style shows in there. Problem is, I don't own a VCR and don't have the equipment or knowledge needed to transfer them over to DVD-R or avi or whatever. Or the time. That means if I want to watch any of my old shoot style stuff, I either have to buy a VCR and hook it up to my home theater just for that purpose, or put in all the time and effort and cost to convert all that stuff, or buy it all again which I can't afford. That's why if it's not posted online somewhere, I likely wasn't able to check it out for this project. I have so much wrestling on VHS it's ridiculous, I'm glad technology advanced, but it really hurt my wrestling viewing.

I actually read her autobiography, and in all fairness, by her own admission Chyna had a messed up life long before she got to the WWF. Even if she had never put on a pair of wrestling boots, she had a pretty big bag of hammers to carry around with her. Granted, what happened to her during and after her time in the WWF certainly didn't make things any better, and I'm pretty sure it made things a lot worse...but I don't think anybody can lay the emotional damage she suffered at the hands of Vince and Co. on this one.

Juvenile idiocy. Historical fascination, similar to Lemmy's collecting of Third Reich memorabilia. A hateful gang mentality they grew out of. Again, I'm not on their side. Just not comfortable with completely slating them as humans based on tattoos I don't know the story behind and backed up by no tales of bigotry in a business full of it. I can buy getting a racist tattoo that you later regret, fine. I once worked with somebody who did that, they were in a skinhead gang on the streets and whilst incarcerated. Once they got out they renounced their ways, and one of the first things they did was get the tattoo changed so it didn't look like the SS symbol anymore...they didn't display it with pride. As sek pointed out, one of the Harris Brothers was suspended from TNA for wearing a t-shirt with some sort of white power/Nazi slogan or saying on it, that is a fact. If that doesn't prove that the dude has issues, I don't know what does. And leave Lemmy out of this, dammit.

double post

Apparently I have "reached my positive quota of votes for the day"? Damn. The same thing happened to me when I tried to like El-P's post about Onita in the reactions thread. Who is this board to tell me when I've reached my positive quota for the day? Don't tell me how to feel, dammit.

It's unfortunate that this is not the forum for such a discussion, because this seems to be leading into a very interesting debate about mental health and the moral and legal responsibility of people with mental health issues, along with the responsibilities of the legal system when dealing with people with mental health issues. There are some excellent, well thought out posts with valid points being made on both sides of the argument here, which I'd love to continue...but unfortunately this is Pro Wrestling Only and I don't want to get too far off topic.

The funny thing about Onita is that pretty much all the guys coming after him and did garbage stuff totally ignored why Onita was so great at it and why he made a shitload of money : milking and selling. That's why watching the very early Onita FMW matches against martial artists is so revealing of what Onita is all about, because he basically worked the same way then : getting his ass beat, selling like a motherfucker, milking every comebacks like crazy. And then of course you got all the Onita mystic with the post-match crying and promo, which is insane even if you don't understand the language. But really, Onita wasn't about taking insane bump and bleeding like a stuck pig. Well, he was, but that's just a part of it. The main thing is that he milked and sold like a mofo. That's why he made shitload of money while all the garbage idiots (Abyss, looking at you) coming after just destroyed their body for basically nothing because all they got out of Onita was : taking bumps in barbwires. That was just a spectacular choice. Onita was like Takada, a master of epic spectacle. Excellent post. That really summarizes what was great about Onita, better than I ever could. I had Onita as my #20, and El-P's post does a great job of explaining why.

I must have missed the post in this thread where somebody said they loved Steve Austin. I also must have missed the post where Steve Austin's conduct was some how connected to Chris Benoit murdering his wife and child.

Exactly. For the record, if you read Larry Matysik's biography of Brody which is co-authored by Brody's wife Barbara, neither of them are even remotely critical of Carlos Colon or implicate him in any way for the murder. Quite the opposite, Barbara mentions how supportive Carlos Colon and his family were of her at the time. That book goes into more detail about those murders than anybody ever has before, including details from Barbara Goodish which had never been released before. If Brody's wife and Larry Matysik, (who was probably his closest friend in the industry) don't accuse Carlos Colon of being behind Brody's murder, seeing as they were closer to Brody and the situation than anybody? I'd wager the theories about Carlos Colon are a bunch of B.S.

You can't really be this obtuse, Jingus. Yes, Chris Benoit was the only person I considered when I decided not to rank Chris Benoit. I was going to consider Neil Armstrong, but it seemed somehow pointless. I keep saying why I won't rank Benoit, and you keep building strawmen. You seem obsessed with naming as many wrestlers (and now you've moved on to non-wrestling celebrities) who have done immoral or illegal things. You must think there is a certain number you'll get to, and I'll suddenly decide that Chris Benoit murdering his wife and child doesn't bother me so much, after all. You say you "just don't understand" the idea of disqualifying anyone for anything they did in their personal life. You say you don't see a point in drawing any line at all. I do understand the reason for disqualifying Chris Benoit from being considered the Greatest Wrestler Ever. I do see a point in drawing a line. And clearly, I am not the only person who feels that way. It's unfortunate that this bothers you. It bothers me (somewhat) that there are people who are going to rank him, but I understand that some people want to separate the wrestler from his actions outside the ring, so they can still enjoy his work, or as some sort of coping mechanism. To each their own, I suppose. If you honestly can't understand why somebody would not want to celebrate the accomplishments of a man who murdered his wife and child, then I don't know what to tell you. It just proves that you and I are very different people, but that is hardly news, I think.

I am curious about this as well. I think maybe the WWE Network might have helped The Hammer, since he appears to have worked hard and brought it pretty much every time he worked and thanks to the network there is a lot of footage with him out there now. His hard work and consistency is one of the reasons I voted for him

Hmmm. Somebody had Scorpio as their #1 pick? I never would have guessed that. I lost Kerry, Dusty and Garvin from my list today, but at least they all made the Top 100.

I'm not pretending it's ALL in the same ballpark. But I listed a dozen other wrestlers who have ended human lives, and I'm sure there are others whom I missed or who simply weren't caught. (Just from my personal circle of indy acquaintances: I know one convicted murderer, one bank robber, multiple statutory rapists, multiple domestic abusers, and countless drug dealers.) Yes, Benoit is probably the single worst example of a wrestler doing something hideous; but there's plenty of other examples of other guys doing incredibly evil, morally unforgivable things. Yet practically nobody seems to seriously suggest that we shouldn't vote for any of those other guys based on moral grounds. ... My point, which you have continually refused to acknowledge, is that Benoit is not the only crazy person in the history of wrestling. There have been other murderers, other maniacs, other criminals. Benoit's arguably the worst for the sheer monstrousness of his acts at the time of his death, sure. But there are others. And how do you measure that stuff? Take the example of Hardbody Harrison, who kept at least eight (probably more) women as literal slaves and perpetual rape victims, locked up in houses he owned for years. That is astonishingly evil. Is enslaving eight people that much less-evil than killing two people? How do you quantify it at all? I'm not making a single excuse for what Benoit did. I'm not on the "well, he was insane/concussed enough that we can't blame him" bandwagon. Right until his death, this guy kept performing a wide variety of complex tasks which indicate that his ability to comprehend the real world was largely intact. I'm simply saying that the wrestling business is so unbelievably full of sleazy shit that Benoit isn't as much of an unique outlier as many people like to portray him. As I said earlier, I personally know a wrestler who is now in prison for murder and a whole collection of other guys who've committed "lesser" crimes. The business is SO much scummier than most fans have any idea about. I refuse to acknowledge your "point" because you have no point that I can see...at least no decipherable one. I will not vote for Chris Benoit because he killed his wife and child, and I do not believe in giving credit, attention or respect to a person who killed his wife and child. You have brought up a plethora of names and cases, and reminded us repeatedly that we have no idea how scummy wrestling really is. You know a bunch of wrestlers who are criminals and bad people. Of course Hardbody Harrison is a scumbag. Of course Larry Sweeney's suicide was tragic. But that has literally nothing to do with my refusal to vote for Benoit as the Greatest Wrestler Ever. You're constructing a strawman argument and then getting upset when nobody buys into it, or if they tell you it makes no sense. If it makes you feel better, I will concede your point. Wrestling is a dirty business and it is full of dirty people, and you know a lot of them and none of us really have any idea how bad it really is. As part of conceding to your point, I am going to contact Grimmas and ask him to take Hardbody Harrison off my ballot as my #1 pick. Because you see, I had no idea that Chris Benoit wasn't the only bad person in wrestling. Oh dammit, I had Jimmy Snuka as #2, and Jose Gonzalez as #3. And look there at #4...Larry Sweeney. I'm not sure what his commiting suicide has to do with this argument, but you brought him up, so he'd better come off my ballot too. You say Chris Benoit was not as unique as people like to portray him. I say he is the only person who at one point in time might have had a serious chance of winning this vote, to then murder his wife and child, therefore eliminating him from contention in my eyes.

You have now been witness to "The Jingus Effect." Righteous indignation based on non-existent logic.

I understand mental illness extremely well for reasons both professional and personal. I understand what you are saying Grimmas, and I respect the compassion that motivates your opinion, however I do not agree with you for two reasons. Firstly, Nancy Benoit filed for divorce three years before the murders due to alleged domestic abuse. There is ample evidence to suggest that Chris Benoit was a domestic abuser before these murders occurred, based on things Nancy Benoit told friends and family members in the years prior to the murders. In other words, he was predisposed to domestic violence. Secondly, Chris Benoit knew he was suffering from depression, since he was taking medication for it. However, he was also willingly and knowingly taking Testosterone at the same time. Anybody with even a fleeting familiarity with Testosterone will tell you that it causes increased aggression. Chris Benoit had to know this, yet he continued to take it. Not every person with CTE is predisposed towards aggression and murder. I feel these two facts make him morally responsible for the murder of his wife and child. There has been an interesting debate in psychiatric circles over the past couple of decades regarding people who are suffering from schizophrenia. It has been proven that people who are schizophrenic, even those who are severely paranoid, can be aware of the fact that they are suffering from an illness. The debate is regarding the responsibility the individual should bear for insuring they take their prescribed medication that would eliminate or lessen their symptoms. And if a person who is suffering from schizophrenia knowingly and willingly refuses to take their medication, are they then legally responsible for their behavior and any crimes they might commit in an alleged psychotic episode? I believe people with mental illnesses have every right to lead normal lives in society just like everybody else. I think that claiming they have no moral responsibility for their actions is insulting them, not protecting them. Just because a person is mentally ill, it doesn't mean they can't differentiate between right and wrong. Just as you are morally responsible if you drink alcohol and drive a car, you are morally responsible if you know you suffer from a mental illness, but then refuse to get that illness treated or ingest substances which will exacerbate the symptoms of your illness. I concede that Chris Benoit was mentally ill when he killed his wife and son. However, I feel that he was a domestic abuser prior to his psychotic episode, and that he is also morally responsible for his behavior leading up to that episode. I am not willing to absolve him of all responsibility for his actions. I understand the opinion of those who do, but I respectfully disagree.

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.