WingedEagle

Really great point by Dylan about why he ranked Tamura over Han. Hadn't quite been able to pin down just why I preferred Tamura but he absolutely nailed it. Couldn't have said it better.

Accessibility is key. People have to dig pretty far beyond even the highly touted material from another country to get to Tamura.

No, the Steiner-HHH match that preceded Angle-Benoit RR03 was a horrible match. I love the Benoit-Angle match. One of my all-time faves. I didn't post that list to try and convince people who hate Angle to change their mind. I posted it to answer the call from those who seem to think those of us who like him are pulling his career out of thin air. You don't have to agree that they're good matches. I'm not trying to change your minds. I'm just trying to get some acknowledgement that even though we may have a different take on the guy mine isn't built out of nothing. Exactly. I completely see what the issues with him are and understand why he may not rank for people because of them, but would think even his biggest detractors can acknowledge it may not have been an issue every single time he stepped into the ring. Mileage will vary based on your preferences, but his flaws are not such that they render him trash. Too many things he did well, even and especially on nights when his limitations got the best of them. Almost the antithesis of a worker prone to laziness. He couldn't help but offer something interesting even in a trainwreck scenario.

I also have a fair bit of Brisco coming my way soon enough. Very, very much looking forward to a deep dive there. Like irrationally excited to jump into that.

It means absolutely nothing, but I love seeing a dude named Moonsault Mavin comment on Jack Brisco. Just a great visual.

How do you view his TNA work? To me he really dragged down talented guys like Nigel, Styles, and even Joe into the sewer with him, but as someone who may be a fan of some of the stuff I dislike, I'm curious to know how you look at the last ten years of his career. I haven't watched most of it since near when it originally aired, but am actually in the process of rewatching a lot of TNA (among the endless list of viewing projects) and just about up to his debut, and am looking forward to seeing where I stand on it today. With that caveat, I thought he had a lot of hits and misses. Hits were when he really gelled with someone, such as the Joe matches at Genesis '06 and Lockdown '08, but not so much the first rematch. Similarly, I thought he had some really excellent work with Styles, Jarrett and far from stinkers with the likes of Sting, Abyss and Matt Morgan, relative to their talents. Then there are the misses. The iron man match with Joe. The other times with even excellent workers like Styles or Christian where enough just wasn't enough and he left a lot of scorched earth in his tracks. Interestingly, I think he didn't mix well at all with Christian, who was determined to work a more traditional style with selling and building a match. Angle's best output, for my money, came when he was in with someone willing and capable of pushing him at his pace, in his comfort zone. I'm just about finished with Bob Backlund's autobiography and throughout it he talks about being very cognizant of building the crowd to a peak and then going home at that point. Angle is someone who often looked to get to that peak right away. And then keep going. On the right night, with the right opponent, it could be paced a bit better and perhaps not overcook things too much. That definitely happened with Nigel, though I think I really liked at least one of their matches, but can't recall which one. So all those misses? The iron man, the video game TV match with AJ and its various iterations over the years? They're just not actively horrible for me. There's too much exciting offense out there for it to be trash. I can find something redeeming in that kind of match where the execution, effort, movement and action all offer something. It may not amount to a great match, and I may be throwing up my hands asking what in hell is going on at some point. But I will not be bored, and there will be great moments, whether a long teased moonsault, some highlight reel suplexes or big near fall sequence. He's that friend who sometimes drinks too much and you need to send him home in cab. But you always want that guy at the bar because its never dull. What's all that worth? I ranked him 61.

I completely understand the criticisms of Angle, but the guy still impresses me more times than not. Yeah, he does too much and for the most part has one gear. But man he just does so much with it. At the end of the day I'd rather go to bed overstuffed and perhaps a little sick than starving.

Incredibly sad, both the news and that it is unsurprising. Thoughts and prayers to her family and loved ones.

Easy to find. Years of weekly TV matches + the Network. Hase required a whole lot more effort, but yes, his style and act should immediately translate even to fans unfamiliar with the Japanese product.

Jericho's work is more easily accessible. That counts.

Clickbait and nonsense.

Very much this. Zayn has looked awfully mediocre on the main roster. I haven't been of Jericho's work with Styles, but didn't expect a ton out of it based on what Jericho has done of late. The Zayn match was a much bigger disappointment, which seems to be something that comes to mind with a lot of his matches lately.

Very strongly believe that "Hogan was awful" is as accurate as "Hogan was an all-time worker." Charisma, crowd pops and moments galore. Also one of the few names where it is probably impossible for most fans to look at him objectively, if that's even a goal. If you grew up watching WWF TV he holds a permanent place in your wrestling memories and development as a fan. On the other hand, Hogan as a top 10 all timer is some real stay away from drugs talk.

Strongly agree on all except Hase. While there seems to be a debate about his post-NJ work, have people soured on him due to the 80s NJPW set or from the yearbooks? A question about his peaks and top performances may meet some varied response, but I never got the sense that his rep has taken any kind of a hit from greater exposure.

Definitely a really good match. Pretty favorable reviews in the MDA as well, but for some reason not one that's often brought up on Hogan's greatest hits list.

Have no idea, but on a related basis I always wondered how strong a recency bias enters into voting. Fujinami & Martel were the two big names I hadn't seen a ton of coming into this, and on the flip side they both rated incredibly highly for me. Did they belong there, or was I blown away by their material being not just great, but also fresh? I have no idea but definitely thought about that sort of thing.

I am completely at a loss as to how you can say that we (if you're still referring to either me or Steve) have said it's incorrect to call him a murderer. I think I've even called him a "fucking murderer" to stress the point. To me cold-blooded implies conscious thought and a lack of emapthy and clear frame of mind. I thought it was pretty well established that there were other factors also at play with Benoit. If there wasn't then I'm just not well enough informed on the matter. But if there is, then it's factually wrong to just call him cold-blooded. It's totally understandable, but probably not quite correct. And I strongly believe that we need to take that seriously in order to understand and prevent. I totally get the need to just push it aside and only say "murderer" when thinking of Benoit. I think it's natural, but I think it's a bad idea. "What's wrong with leaving it at Chris Benoit killed his fucking family. Brain trauma is serious. We should treat it seriously. The end." Nothing wrong with that on a wrestling thread. At all. People opened this thread up to being about more than wrestling, and if that's the case, I'd have to remove the full stops in your comment to directly connect the brain trauma with his actions. I hear and respect you not wanting to do that. I'd have preffered it if you could also respect my point of view that it's important not to disconnect the two if we're ever to prevent it. But I honestly think nothing less of you for not wanting to. That's fine. We just can't get any further debating with each other about it then. I really think we should leave it at that, as you say. I truly look forward to engaging with you on much more enjoyable subjects, wrestling related or otherwise. Amen, brotha.

Stiff chair shots to the head -- when not overdone. My god, they are so brutal & intense and almost always kick things up another gear when used sparingly. But not cool! And really, shouldn't be done. Will not complain if I never see another. But watching old footage? POW!

Anyone who says its incorrect to call him a murderer? How about those concerned with the treatment of Chris Benoit if he were alive? For reference, see your earlier posts, also quoted on page 6 of this thread. What's wrong with leaving it at Chris Benoit killed his fucking family. Brain trauma is serious. We should treat it seriously. The end.

So much for his babyface turn.

But don't you see the point that Benoit most likely suffered from something way more serious (he was way more fucked up) than a concussed football player who never came close to doing the same thing as Benoit? And that by ignoring his illnes, not looking into it, not trying to prevent it in the future, not trying to understand it and treat it in others, but just saying "others may suffer from a mental illness that should be treated, but when the illness makes you cross a certain line, we should stop trying to understand it, because trying to understand it implies acceptance of the action" might in the future enable us to help people suffering from minor mental illness, but won't help prevent actions like Benoit's or treat people who are as fucked up as he was in time? Go for it. Treat everything. Just don't try to change the top line of Chris Benoit's resume. I take issue with qualifying his actions in any way. You can explore and hopefully find solutions for brain trauma without providing an opening for excusing his actions.

Do you really not get my point? Did I show ambivalence toward mental illness or caring for those with brain trauma? Did I not make it plainly clear that wife- and child-murderer Chris Benoit was a poor platform for arguing for that point? If this confusion is due to reading comprehension or my words not being clear then I'm happy to clarify, because I'm sure there's no way it'd be willful ignorance.

Wave the flag for someone with mental illness who has not committed murder or a similarly horrible act. I just don't get what's contentious about that point. Find one of the likely countless wrestlers, football players or others who have brain trauma. Scream it from the hills. But please first confirm whether or not they have killed someone.

Your contention that he wasn't a cold blooded killer is being rejected. He is a cold blooded killer. The mental issues talking point is what was being rejected by Dave and Phil. Ok that may be fair. He clearly committed murder, thus is a murderer. What I am trying to relay is, that it is sad he didn't get help before he murdered. It's sad that all of the signs were there and he didn't get proper treatment with drugs, therapy and whatever it needed. Just going "MURDERER" implies to me that people who are mentally ill should not have help and that we should wait till they do something and then lock them up. It stops the conversation and seems to ignore a lot of issues around it. I wish we lived in a world where people being really fucked up in the head would be helped and not just left alone until something terrible happens. Agreed -- but when your basis for that argument is someone who murdered his wife and child, you lose. Its just that simple.

That is a really great post. Yeah, forgot about the abuse leading up to it. However, I would argue Benoit was ill probably his whole life. Stories about him working out so hard as a child to an obsessive amount. My question is, if he wasn't in the wrestling business and had gotten proper treatment, would this murder/suicide had happened? Of course we can't know that... but I wonder. With proper treatment in terms of drugs, therapy and working in a different environment, you never know. I've dealt with a lot of family issues with mental illness the last year and it really has changed how I look at Benoit. Benoit obviously committed murder, but if he lived and didn't commit suicide I would want him getting treatment, not just thrown in jail to rot. Here you question whether he would have murdered his family if he had been in a different setting. Don't these hypotheticals apply to every single person and situation -- murder, felony, misdemeanor, and every other act of good or bad in the world? What if Chris Benoit were born on a potato farm in Ireland instead of in Canada? What if I were born on a potato farm instead of in New York? I've still yet to hear the case for why his actions should be qualified, only that there are qualifications. It remains unnecessary to qualify his actions in order to make the case that mental illness or brain trauma are serious issues. So don't. But at least this time you refer to him as a murderer. 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. See, I think it is possible to agree with both of you, because I don't think Steven absolves Benoit of any responsibility for his actions just because he, like you, seek to explain them. You didn't call him a cold blooded killer either, which I think was part of Steven's point. But your post is very well written, very true and very interesting and I completely agree with you. I just think Steven might too. EDIT: And ofcourse Steven beat me to it and for the record I still think it's possible to agree with both of you. Because I do. Completely, from what I can read from both your posts... Thanks. You are right. My whole point is calling him a cold blooded killer is really missing a lot of things. Many discussions are multi-faceted. Other factors may have played a role. You're clearly stating here that calling him a cold-blooded killer misses things. The implication seems to be that calling him a cold- blooded killer is wrong. If that's the case, what you're saying is clear. And wrong. He was. He may have had mental illnesses or brain trauma that compounded that act. But I've yet to hear the case for why his actions should be qualified. Its also not necessary to qualify his actions in order to make the case that mental illness or brain trauma are serious issues. So don't. If you're not saying its wrong to call him a cold-blooded killer, then let that be. Save the energy for people struggling with mental issues illness and brain trauma who are not cold-blooded killers. That is a much more persuasive argument. Pre mediated by someone severely ill yes. Here you qualify premeditated murder by pointing to his mental illness. This seems very clear. But he did commit premeditated murder. Once or twice. He may have had mental illnesses or brain trauma that compounded that act. But I've yet to hear the case for why his actions should be qualified. Its also not necessary to qualify his actions in order to make the case that mental illness or brain trauma are serious issues. So don't. Pre mediated by someone severely ill yes.Premeditated by a guy who had a long history of abusing his wife to the point that she had gone from threatening divorce (2003) to predicting her own murder. The best you can say about Chris Benoit is that he chose the exact wrong industry for someone with latent violent tendencies and a predilection for poly drug use. That *maybe* all those chairshots and pills turned an average shithead abuser into a freakish family annihilator. Not a lot of cases in the rapidly expanding CTE literature about that. CTE and mental illness are not absolution here and it's logically and ethically misguided to use them as such. I'm not trying to dismiss it. I'm trying to say Benoit had been ill probably his whole life. Why? He murdered his family. He may have had mental illnesses or brain trauma that compounded that act. But I've yet to hear the case for why his actions should be qualified. Its also not necessary to qualify his actions in order to make the case that mental illness or brain trauma are serious issues. So don't.