WingedEagle

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.

I genuinely don't believe they are, I think they're just being rejected. Correct, the point is very clear.

Sometimes mitigating circumstances just aren't all that mitigating or relevant. I believe killing your innocent wife and child is one such case. There may have been medical factors that played a role in what transpired that weekend. Perhaps big, perhaps small. Just not sure why anyone would be so eager to look for an excuse or caveat here. Its not necessary to make a case for brain trauma or any other kind of affliction. Not every act needs a moral defense.

Given that this isn't exactly a Tanashashi crowd he didn't fare too badly. He made my top 15 but could make a case for him much higher than that. By my jaded eyes the premier big match worker in the world since Kobashi's NOAH run, with a slew of classics over the last 5 years that aren't all that far behind the best of All Japan.

Watch a ton of stuff you've never seen before or haven't watched in years. Then keep doing that and don't worry about a ballot.

Embrace your inner babyface!

Ha you brought it up so I'll comment -- absolutely noticed and much preferred the less combative approach thus far on part 1. Don't always have to discuss rasslin with your dukes up!

Christ, you know some of us have limited vacation days right?

I tend to assume they're bigots, but am completely open to persuasion that's not the case. What's open and shut is that it is very, very dumb to partner with people whom the slightest bit of diligence will show have Nazi tattoos and thus invite questions about their thinking. Its not a subject I'd look to discuss with potential TV partners, sponsors, advertisers, venues, marketing firms, production companies, merchandise manufacturers & distributors, and others.

About halfway through this and really enjoying it. Even though counting down your top 100 wrestlers, I like that there's talk about a given worker's strengths and weaknesses as it makes for a much more nuanced discussion.

The Dream! Glad he made the cut this time around. Thought I might be the high man on him but wasn't quite there. Probably went irrationally high on him but what can you do, he was the man. One of the few workers who made everything he was involved with entertaining in spite of his in-ring limitations.

Sounds like it. Color me open-minded.

Does TNA generate positive cash flows or have valuable assets that we're unaware of? Do the Harris brothers have a legitimately successful business outside of wrestling? I feel like if this is the outcome then a few of us, hell maybe 1-2 of us, could chip in and add "wrestling promoter" to our resume. Scratch that off the bucket list.

A true GWE MVP.

Not at all a bad idea. Was just going to add that I appreciate more comments and some match recs on Virus, as he's someone I'm just not familiar with. Presumably that won't be the case for a lot of what's to come but its a great resource.

Thanks, will look into it.

Taker probably smokes Dusty in great matches. But you don't exactly need a whole lot of hands to count either of their classics. Taker's floor is well below 6 feet under, and something approached on a regular if not consistent basis. Dusty was almost always entertaining and found ways to keep things from approaching dull. His wasn't an act that lost its appeal & fun when the mic was down and entrance music stopped. The man could control a crowd more than enough to squeeze a single or double out of most situations.

Hell, Dusty's work as a *literal* dead man via videos, promos from others and the NXT tag tourney is better than Taker's dead man gimmick.

That's insulting.

Yeah the big problem with Taker's aura is it often ended when the bell rang.

You skipped the Brothers of Destruction and their reign of terror that evoked comparisons to the Holy Demon Army. Imagine that supernatural showdown.

Is this available anywhere other than DM? For some reason that site is constantly six kinds of slow. Just unwatchable.

Let's not forget all the outstanding work before Foley showed up. Nor the fact that he was probably the worst opponent of Austin's run. No doubt a part of some great matches, but few and far between. And that's coming from someone who loves the Michaels & Brock matches for the most part, and doesn't find the Triple H matches awful.

Just wanted to add I'm very much enjoying this. Started cherry picking TNA matches a few months back based on WON star ratings but it'll be good to have a second reference to fill in some gaps on things that may have fallen under the radar or are getting a second look. I'm also watching matches, not shows, and fully recognize that means I'm likely enjoying matches a bit more than may have been possible in the moment. Almost through 2006, and its clear already at this point that I never gave AJ Styles nearly enough credit, even if he did rank highly for me on GWE. Just consistently excellent.