Shining Wiz Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 This came up particularly in the thread for Invader 1, and has been mentioned with less vitriol in the Benoit thread, but how are people planning on dealing with the, shall we say, more personally reprehensible people who were otherwise great wrestlers? Follow up to this point - where does the line get drawn? I would imagine a large number of candidates have some questionable behaviour in their pasts (Austin's spousal abuse allegations, Murdoch's racism, Lawler's penchant for (too?) young girls, the mess that is Flair, etc....). Personally, I can separate it all. I don't watch the first season of Sons of Anarchy and think about Half Sack killing an old lady, and I don't think about Benoit killing his family when I watch his matches. So, no effect on my voting really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 If you're able to watch someone wrestle without being distracted by anything particularly heinous they did outside the ring that's fine. If you're not, I think that's also okay. El-P touched on a distinction with Benoit/Invader that also makes sense for me -- I saw most of Benoit's career and highlights before June 2007, not after. I'm rewatching PPVs on the Network and depending on the match and how I'm feeling may watch a Benoit match, or I may skip it. Lately its kind of empty for me watching it, but I think at the end of the day I'm going to leave him off of my list for the simple reason that I really do not want to go back and watch him wrestle. Whether its because of what he did in the ring or otherwise, I don't want to spend my wrestling time with him. There are others I'm dying to watch more of and those who were always favorites that still are. But if I really don't want to watch your matches I can't say you're one of the 100 greatest ever. I haven't seen any Invader and I'm not sure I want to. I may look to check out some depending on what certain people may recommend, but perhaps I'll allocate that time to someone else instead and won't regret that either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 I openly don't care about this, and it affects nothing for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W2BTD Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 Means absolutely nothing. I have no problem watching Benoit matches, just like I have no problem watching OJ Simpson highlights or Inavder I matches or Buck Zumhoff matches or Ray Rice highlights or Michael Vick play football. Maybe this means I have a dark, jaded soul. I don't know. I do not condone the actions of any of these people, but jeez, it's just goofy wrestling matches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 With Benoit, it's two fold. One, it's personal so I can't detach in a way I can with Invader. If you can, that's fine. Two, I fully believe that his style partially led to what happened. You might not. I do. I don't think Invader's great selling led to what happened. It doesn't mean I'm going to take off 20 places for Benoit and put him at 60 instead of 40 or whatever. I'm just not going to rate him. That simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 i'm likely on the extreme opposite end of most on this board. having personally known people who've gone through, to pick one example, sexual abuse and the fallout that never seems to end, i just don't want to glorify people who did things on that level. and i see sports and performance as ultimately less significant than the systemic/societal issues these deeds often reflect. the invader deal is actually tougher for me in some ways because i believe the narrative surrounding that has been in some part informed by subtle racism. i'm thinking of the idea that invader could use wrestling clips for his defense because puerto ricans didn't know it was fake (maybe this was true but it seems highly suspect), or the "that's just how they are down there" stuff you hear from people in the business. even then, not sure i could bring myself to watch a match of his. and yes, i'm not exactly down to watch a ray rice or richie incognito play football again either EDIT: matt d, i wonder what your argument would be for rating misawa but not benoit. i mean yeah he didn't kill anyone else directly, but the style he helped popularize... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 I will likely be one of the low ratings on Misawa, I assume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted October 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 With Benoit, it's two fold. One, it's personal so I can't detach in a way I can with Invader. Personal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantherwagner Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 I am going to use this as an excuse to bring back one of the things that I wrote around a decade ago in smarkschoice. The top 100 reference is to the Best Wrestler Ever poll back in the day. Though I still haven't been able to watch a Benoit match without thinking "he killed his wife". I almost suceeded once (something during ECW TV) and right before the pinfall I thought ... not sure why, but until now I didn't think about him killing his wife. In pro wrestling (and other industries like music) unfortunately it's too easy to find top performers who are terrible human beings. --- Jerry Lawler allegedly sodomizing 12 years old girls is something that made me hate him for years and years and I couldn't even look at him without being sick. But there's a point where I realized... it's all pro wres, nobody's a saint. The father of one of my heroes in wrestling (and a fine wrestling legend by himself) was a rapist, my all time childhood idol is an asshole who gets a kick out of belittling people, and in my top 100 there's sexual weirdos who fucked young hairless boys at the arena showers, known drunks who put other people's life in danger several times, legit lunatics, coke fiends, alleged rapists, somebody who threw a hooker off a hotel window killing her, somebody who was drunk and ran over an old man also killing him, a guy who did porn with a "female" swedish bodybuilder, several guys who left their families to marry girls "in the biz" (and one of those guys started "dating" her when she was 16 or so), one of the pioneers in bringing coke to the lucha locker rooms and allegedly getting hooked many guys who would eventually become dangerous junkies and/or murderers, etc.VIVA PRO WRESTLING~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 Since I'm basically responsible for the existence of this thread, let me rebound on this : El-P touched on a distinction with Benoit/Invader that also makes sense for me -- I saw most of Benoit's career and highlights before June 2007, not after. Yeah, that is my personnal experience I was talking about. Benoit was for all I know a decent guy who was also s great wrestler. Then he snapped and went insane and killed his kid and wife. At this point, I wasn't even following wrestling anymore, I had not watch much of his WWE career (expect for the big PPV matches preparing for the SC poll). Benoit was already a done deal. So when I had to rewatch his stuff on ECW and WCW during my 90's project, it was all rewatch and only part of a much broader context. I also couldn't watch a match of his without thinking "he killed Nancy" at some point, no matter how great the match was. Some times it was straight away sometimes it was later on. Some stuff was awkward as hell to watch (like when he's arguing with Nancy at ringside during a WCW angle). I've had no "issue" watching it back, but I have no desire to seek out his matches now that I'm done with this era. I probably won't ever watch a Benoit match again until I go back to watch some 90's NJ at some point, and I'm perfectly happy about it. The Invader case is different because I'd have to actively seek out his matches. And I have no desire to watch or even try to enjoy his stuff, with which I have no relationship to begin with. Benoit was part of my wrestling fandom. Like with most of us, as we watched him and praised him before the abomination he commited. Invader isn't, except for maybe El Boricua on this board. So yeah, there are hundreds of guys I can enjoy if I want. And I don't see the point in studying a guy who "alledgedly" stabbed a guy and let him bleed to death. Of course you could extent that feeling to guys like Carlos Colon, in asking what responsability they had in covering this mess. Likewise I'm not at ease with watching Snuka to be honest. That's my personal viewpoint on this case. As far as Zumhofe goes, I'll never bat an eye on this guy. I don't need to, and he's a human piece of waste. It's not even "alledged". It's a fact. And yeah, I realize that there are a lot of dirtbag in this business, likewise in pretty much the entire entertainment business, that we don't know off. But those I know about, I'd rather not have to deal with them. Yes, it's a personnal choice, and probably a question of personal sensitivity. Moral I dunno. Probably, to some extent. On a different yet parrallel topic, I'm not sure I want to watch one of those late AJ/NOAH head-dropping match ever again, since we know that it directly led Misawa to his death. There you go, that's my take on the whole thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 I would not fault anyone for saying "fuck Invader, fuck Benoit, fuck Snuka, et." for something like this. I get why people would do it, and there is a part of me that trends in that direction. But then I start thinking about where you draw the line and it becomes a real problem. For example, I get the argument that Benoit's best stuff has already been viewed and judgments made. But I don't see how going out and watching Invader matches is any "worse" than rewatching tons of Benoit for the purposes of a WCW rewatch thread (I swear I'm not picking at El-P here - I literally don't see what the difference could possibly be). And I struggle with the idea of not considering Invader on "moral grounds" or whatever, while still considering Benoit. If anything I'm far less inclined to rate Benoit because I think murdering your own wife and child is worse than killing a co-worker EVEN IF the the murder was in cold blood. I also agree that there is something about the presentation of the Brody/Invader/Colon thing that has always rubbed me the wrong way. If you put a gun to my head and ask me what I think happened I would say "Invader brought a weapon along because he knew he was going to have a conversation with Brody that Brody might not like and was afraid of getting his ass kicked. They started talking, Brody did something threatening/Invader got scared and stabbed him to death." But I have no clue if that is what happened and really no one else does either. What I do know is that I generally don't trust the word of wrestlers on anything, so I struggle with the idea that I should trust their word on what happened in this instance. I also know that Invader was acquitted in a trial, I believe on the grounds of self defense. It may be "disgusting" for some people to hear that, but there is something fucked about people in the business/reporters talking about how "that's just how those people are," as if Puerto Rican people are incapable of making a correct judgment in such a case. None of this is to say that Brody "deserved to die" or anything like that, just that I wonder if this would be looked at the same way if the players involved were different/it happened in a different part of the world. Another case to consider as a comparison is Sasaki, where you have a trainee who was killed. We don't know all the details there, but I could EASILY see an argument made where that is "worse" than the Invader/Brody situation because you have a natural trust that is broken, someone who is completely defenseless, et. being taken advantage of and killed even if it was "an accident." Does he get disqualified? And this doesn't even get into stuff like Takada, Inoki, et. alleged involvement with the Yakuza, which would be considering morally repugnant in almost any "sports" context, but gets a pass in wrestling (for the most part). So...I don't blame El-P, funkdoc, or anyone for drawing a line, but I do wonder where that line gets drawn and how it is applied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 So...I don't blame El-P, funkdoc, or anyone for drawing a line, but I do wonder where that line gets drawn and how it is applied. Its up to each individual and what's right or wrong for them. We won't all agree in each case and that's fine. Hopefully we can agree that someone is not wrong in making a personal decision on whether to consider a Benoit or Invader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 Just to add a last word on the matter, which is extremely complex, for me it's less a matter of drawing a line that would work for every case than deciding and judging for each case depending on the whole context (the context of the crime and of my own relationship, or lack thereof, with the guy's work). I would include Benoit for the simple reason I watched him and considered him a great wrestler before. If I knew nothing about Benoit today, I wouldn't go out of my way to watch him and would certainly not include him because in the end, I would just not have seen much of him except when opposed to someone I'd be really interested in (and even then, my enjoyment would most probably be tainted). Watching Benoit in the context of going through ECW and WCW made it a small part of a whole (just a few months in ECW and late 95 to 99 in a 89-2001 WCW timeline), and I admit that I was glad whenever he wasn't on TV and also fast forwarded a lot of stuff that weren't important angles/matches, not because it bothered me to watch him, but because I didn't really wanted to watch him anymore. Totally forgot about Sasaki. That's a good example, as the circonstances have been quite blurry (same thing happened in the Sumo world a few years ago, with a trainee dying because he was abused in the dojo). The very positive image change he went through in the 2000's mostly put that dark cloud out of everybody's minds. Some go so far to say his new approach in life and will to developp and take young guys under his wing was a way to "make up" for his past actions. Didn't something happen with Great Khali too BTW ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exposer Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 I completely understand if someone doesn't want to vote for Benoit, Invader, Snuka, etc. I'll admit I don't actively seek out Benoit matches, really ever because of what happened. I have watched Benoit matches since, but it can be tough. However, the Greatest Wrestler of All-Time to me encompasses every wrestler, murderer or rapist, wonderful person or piece of shit. For a project like this, objectivity is important to me. Benoit wrestled for over twenty years. To have as complete an accurate list as possible I feel like I need to watch at least some of his stuff and maybe rate him because he was good. It may seem absurd that I vote for these people to keep the integrity of a silly project, but I don't think I could ever participate in a project like this if I couldn't willingly vote or watch matches of these people. The project would have to be called The Greatest Wrestler of All-Time Who Didn't Kill Their Wife and Child, Threw a Hooker Off a Balcony, or Stabbed a Man in the Shower. That's not what the project is called or is. So, everybody's included, even the bad apples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 thanks for the good-faith reply, dylan! you seemed pretty heated about this earlier it's tough to accurately sum up my standard on this sort of thing, but i'll try! basically i tend to feel harshest about actions which harm those in oppressed/less powerful groups, and particularly when this is the result of exploitation by those in power. sexual abuse, child abuse, structural violence in its many (including non-physical) forms...i think you get the idea. i don't even really watch football anymore unless i'm with my family. gets harder for me with the realization that the only way to stop the game from being a death trap is turning it into flag football. i wouldn't mind that, but i don't expect it to ever happen. i've got plenty of other stuff going on in my life so i'm no less happy for giving up old pleasures. more so than individuals, i tend to be concerned with organizations that normalize awful behavior. see the racism within WWE...dylan had a great example with sasaki, as stuff involving trainers really tends to go under the radar (rovert even alluded to similar things within developmental recently). reminds me of athletes being pressured to practice without water and dying of heatstroke. as for how that all relates to this, i'm just not interested in a project that would require me to ignore so much of this stuff. i find it fascinating to see the efforts from those who do, but it's not for me at all anymore. i couldn't fairly have a top 100 without lawler, but i don't want to say "hey this guy may very well be a rapist pedophile but HOT DIGGITY DAWG was he good at making fake punches look real!" EDIT: yes el-p, i believe khali accidentally(?) killed someone in training. don't know the whole story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 If you want to take the moral high ground on wrestlers that's fine and that's your personal choice but take into consideration all of the great Japanese workers in modern history did terrible things to their dojo boys....things that would get you quite a bit of prison time in some cultures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 Again, a lot of it for me is just that I don't want to watch Benoit. I don't think there's anyone else I feel that way about (Well Buck for different reasons, but I don't want to watch him anyway). If I need to watch him to see another wrestler I'm considering rating, then I will, but that's as far as I'm going in the name of the project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRMD Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 It doesn't really bother me when watching any wrestler who did awful things out of wrestling. I don't know why, but it just doesn't. Even if I think it's awful. Don't get me wrong, I think about it pretty much the whole time I'm watching a Benoit match, but I can still watch the match. Also, why does nobody talk about Bill Dundee the way they talk about Jerry Lawler and young girls? On Jamie Dundee's shoot interview, he says about 30 times that his dad used to have sex with 13 year olds and shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 Caravaggio killed a guy he was arguing with over a tennis match; William S Burroughs shot his wife in the head; William Shakespeare illegally horded grain during a famine while people were dying of starvation in the street to make a fast buck; Woody Allen might well have slept with underage girls ... I don't care about any of this in the slightest when it comes to their work. Same is true of wrestlers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zenjo Posted October 25, 2014 Report Share Posted October 25, 2014 Wrestlers are not a nice group of people in general, and never have been. But they're not coming around to your house for dinner, so who gives a shit? Whatever they do outside of the wrestling world is none of my business and I don't care about their personal lives. They are performers and I'll judge them as such. If someone can't enjoy a Benoit match because they can't separate the character from the person then I respect that viewpoint. To imagine they are taking the moral high ground by not watching certain performers is the biggest load of sanctimonious BS however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W2BTD Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 When it comes to Kensuke Sasaki, his attitude towards the dead trainee is what rubs people the wrong way. He never talks about it, but the one time he did, the loose translation of his reaction was a shoulder shrug and "It was just one of those things", which some took as 'this m'fer killed that kid and doesn't give a fuck', but from what I understand it was meant as more of a 'It was an unfortunate consequence of training'. It is also said that his attitude towards it today is that he never thinks about it and simply views it as an accident that happened and nothing more. So some people see him as callous. The Khali thing was a straight up accident, as the kid took a bad bump off of what I believe was a back body drop iirc. There was more heat on the trainers at the the time than there was on Khali, because everybody involved was extremely green and the trainers were seen as negligent in allowing them to do things they weren't ready for from what I remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 When you're watching two guys pretend to have a fight it's not hard to watch it in a detached way where you only care about the performance and not what happened in real life. I never watch an Invader match and think "wow, I'm looking at the face of a killer. " If I really think about it, I view most murder cases in the same detached way. It's simply a matter of switching off. What I find a little strange is that people don't give two shits about Brody until his killer is brought up. Suddenly caring about him as a human being because if the way he died is understandable I suppose, but people sure as he'll don't have a lot of sympathy for him otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 I have no problem with watching Benoit matches, though I will admit that it took me a while to get to that point. The problem with drawing a line is that the wrestling business has been populated throughout its history almost exclusively by moral reprobates. In the wake of the Zumhofe trial, Dave made the point that sleeping with underage girls was as common among 80s wrestlers as steroid abuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 I've felt perfectly comfortable watching Benoit for years now, and he'll do well on my list, though I wouldn't try to sway anyone who feels the opposite. Obviously, he's not a guy we'll get a clean read on in terms of where he rates. And that is what it is--nothing to be done about it. Invader, I don't think twice about, because I never attached any emotion to that situation. I wasn't the right age and knew Brody only as an abstract figure from the Apter mags. But generally, I'm similar to Parv on this issue. I don't struggle to separate the art from the artist. And I don't have a lot of interest in feeling outraged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Schneider Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 Pretty obvious response from a Ravens beat writer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.