Danish Dynamite

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. Hmmm. You possibly missed my post about the difference between Benoit's condition and a psychopathic killer devoid of empathy, but otherwise "there" (am coming up short for an English term, sorry, but I hope you get my point). Either that, or you just disagree, which I guess doesn't really matter much on a wrestling board :-) But my point was not in any way that everything is treatable. Benoit was probably treatable. Why is that not an important aspect? But this line from overbooked: "Failure to engage with the possible reasons behind a tragedy means we're doomed to repeat it." pretty much explains the importance of debating it. Again, maybe not on a wrestling board, but in general. If people see my (or Steven's) arguments as an opening for excusing Benoit's actions then they either do not read what we've written or look for that opening everywhere (either to close it at all costs or to use it). And again. I don't see us making any excuse for him whatsoever. And I certainly don't see any of us censoring his resume.

Scarily accurate. This sentence is fucking important: "Failure to engage with the possible reasons behind a tragedy means we're doomed to repeat it."

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?

When? I'd love to see that :-) I'm not a basher of either. At all. But the body bag matches between them were... awful

But what do you think we are waving the flag about? Excusing his actions? That's bullshit, 'cause none of us do. Giving a reason to rank him? Also crap, 'cause none of us did.

Who said that? If anyone said that people who don't rank Benoit are against mental health treatment I must have completely missed it. I know neither Steven nor I said it. And neither of us ranked him, so it's most likely not one of us who said it...

Come on... When he says cold-blooded murder it implies complete mental clarity. No matter what his actions leading up to the murders, it looks like he was definetely not completely "there". It's the very clear difference between him being devoid of empathy and a psychopath or suffering from some mental illness. The latter is pretty obviously the case. So technically I guess it's not accurate to call him a cold-blooded murderer. He's a fucking murderer. No one disputes that. I tried to make the argument as to why it to me is extremely important to qualify his actions (while, obviously, at the same time still remembering how fucked up and inexcusable his actions were). Again, I think some of you are locked in your thinking, because of the horror of the murders. And I fully understand that. But debating them, understanding them with the intent of preventing in the future is not, in any way, the same as excusing them.

Tanahashi: I had him. Seems a fair rating I think. Toyota: I look away in shame. I didn't get around to seeing enough joshi at all. I have two. They haven't come up yet. But from the little I've seen of Toyota, I'm pretty sure she'd make it on my list in the future. Undertaker: Didn't have, but I'm not as down on him as some here. I like plenty of his stuff in a guilty pleasure sort of way. But that's obviously also part of why I didn't have him on this particular list... Piper: Noooooo.... too soon!!!! ... Wait... I had him at the excact same spot... Ricky Jackson, KrisZ and others have made excellent cases for him, and I completely second them. The only reason I'm a little miffed is because of some of the names still to come. But oh well, #83 for the rowdy one is actually much higher than I'd expected, so good going Mr. Toombs. I'm down 31. So have 69 left for the last 82. 13 left I didn't rank. Damn you, Kurt Angle!

I'm not sure you guys are getting grimmas point. Because you keep talking about justifying and excusing and not once, not even close to it, did he ever state that (that I know off). He didn't even fucking vote for the guy. But if you want to avoid things like that ever happening again, you need to understand the reasons behind it. Hence the need to explain, which is pretty far from excusing and forgiving (even though I've heard that that's the "Christian" thing to do... I for one am not close to forgiving him for his actions). So if you wanted to discuss the issue or the comments made by grimmas (or me for that matter), then you should focus on what we're saying instead of what you want to understand from what we say. It is extremely dangerous, and dare I say a little ignorant, in the long run to simply dismiss something like the Benoit murders as "just a sick, fucked up murdering idiot". It is, in all likelihood, the direct result of a mental illness, which might in other cases be identified in time and treated, or if it is the result of his in ring work, steroids and what-the-fuck-else that we can all only speculate about, then the conditions for creating said state of mind should be prevented in the future. Only(!) by opening ones eyes to this, and to the fact that there's more at play here than one guy being a latent fucking psycho, can we ever get anywhere closer to doing better tomorrow. So yes, I do strongly believe Steven's point is being lost. Maybe even intentionally ignored or swept aside by some of you, who have already locked your mind as to what you think about this, because you somehow feel that even remotely discussing anything other than the extremely simplistic "he's just a fucking murderer and it has nothing to do with anything else" would in any way indicate that you excused him or was looking for a way to justify his actions. And for the last time: It is not! And I'm not talking about sentencing if he had lived. Because I know that's a Pandora's Box to open. I live in a country that abhores the concept of the death penalty, and where treatment and rehabilitation is a major, even founding part of our legal system, so we probably come to this from two very different places culturally. So let's not go down that path. Let's just say: We agree that Benoit is guilty as fuck. We agree that there is no excuse and no justification. At all! ... But we apparently disagree whether or not there was a reason or an explanation and whether or not that should be taken serious, discussed and eventually learnt from. And again: Neither Steven nor I voted for Benoit. And I sure as hell know none of us were making excuses for him. I will obviously read your responses, if you make any. But I think I am out of energy for this debate. It's interesting, and it's interesting hearing from someone that come to this from a totally different point of view (just like it's interesting hearing from thos who actually do try to excuse his actions). I just don't have much more to add, and I did primarily come to this site for the wrestling aspect. I have daily interesting debates on morality with people irl, but nowhere have I found as much interesting debate and passion about wrestling as here, so I'll stick to that for a while I think :-) But honestly: Thanks for sharing your thoughts, everyone. It's been relatively enlightening :-) Peace out and see you on the wrestling threads

There's also some level of availability of footage too, with Cesaro especially, over Hero. It's a hell of a lot easier for me to watch 200 Cesaro matches than 200 Hero matches. Totally agree. From what I have watched of Hero I would still rank Cesaro a good bit higher. But I will admit that I'm only at 6-7 Hero matches, som I'm in no way dismissing his case. He might well be as good as some here claim. Matt, footage availability is a valid point. I think it's interesting in this case, as the harder to find footage for Hero is what makes his case, while that same footage is a probably a detriment to Cesaro's, as his ROH/CZW runs are largely underwhelming and he is completely overshadowed by Hero in the KoW tag team stuff. This makes me really want to check out more Chris Hero stuff.

There's also some level of availability of footage too, with Cesaro especially, over Hero. It's a hell of a lot easier for me to watch 200 Cesaro matches than 200 Hero matches. Totally agree. From what I have watched of Hero I would still rank Cesaro a good bit higher. But I will admit that I'm only at 6-7 Hero matches, som I'm in no way dismissing his case. He might well be as good as some here claim.

I had Cesaro higher, but his placement here seems fair to me. ... And agree with Jimmy :-) Very poetic placement.

Totally agree! Also agree with Childs that Colon hasn't been accused of killing anyone is a pretty damn big difference between the cases. EDIT: On board with peachchaos as well here. I'm still ok with people ranking Benoit. I just chose not to, for the reasons many have stated. I'm relatively ok with watching his matches though. But I do think about the murders every time I see one of his matches, and I definetely find myself seeking them out much less than I would have otherwise.

He was my #50, so I hear you completely... Also lost Garvin (#68) Didn't have Onita, but he was damn close. EDIT: Sami Zayn was my #80. He probaby gained a spot or two off of the NXT show that weekend. Mid-80's is maybe where I really feel he belongs.

Hopefully him and Piper drop soon. With Dusty gone, we can go to the really good ones. Because really, inside the ring, neither of those three were much (Piper being the worst by far). Watch Piper in Portland in 1980 and you'll immediately change your mind. Totally agree! And KrisZ made my day with his great case for Piper on his and Dylan's GWE Part 1 podcast. Backlund and Dusty down. I love Dusty, but didn't rank him here. Really thought I ranked Backlund, but when I checked I must've cut him at the very end. Neither was on my list, both were really fun.

Brother, I wasn't going to do a GWE podcast but after reading this, I ended up recording 4 shows over the weekend. Once I edit them, I'll have them up at P2B for you to listen to. And from the tease on The Dangerous Alliance they sound awesome!!!

Hmmm... Nakamura at 94... I had him at 98... And still I feel he should've gone higher... Maybe this is now my biggest regret. Since turning in my ballot I've seen a handful Nakamura matches more, and he keeps impressing me. Absolutely one of the best new guys and I feel like I want to move him higher with every match I see.

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...

Didn't have LA Park. Not fond of the WCW comedy stuff, and initially left a little cold by the other stuff I've seen (both pre and mainly post WCW). But I will definetely give him another chance due to his ranking here. Chicana I had at #72. What I've seen has been great. Hope I can find more :-)

Ikeda: Didn't rank him. Am gonna check out the recommende matches if possible. But from what I've already seen I still wouldn't go top 100. Virus: Really haven't seen enough. Didn't rank. Will definetely check out! Kerry Von Erich: My #56. My highest to fall until... The Destroyer: My #43, my first top 50 casualty. Expected that to be someone else :-) Looking forward to seeing Virus and maybe Ikeda more. Glad that both Kerry and Destroyer made it. I had my doubts earlier, but they did well.

Yes!!! Thank you!!!

The architecture analogy obviously doesn't hold water 100% (It probably wasn't building the house that made the architect kill his family, in the way that the way Benoit worked is likely a very big part if not the reason for his mental state. You're also not forced to look at and engage on some personal level with the architect as you are with Benoit when watching a match). But there is some fun and some interesting thoughts to be had, going down that road. How can we marvel at the ruins of the Colloseum in Rome or structures build under terrible regimes all over the world? How can we separate that from the horrors of the times? Is it because "we" just don't know or understand the crimes comitted throughout history? Recent and ancient... Is it because time does "heal all wounds"? Is it because there really can be a difference between the actions of a human being and the work that person did or art they made? Is it because at heart we don't want to be reminded of the bad things from history? Is it the excact opposite, because we actually use the landmarks to remind of us the past and what mistakes not to repeat?

I don't feel any different about him for that reason. I did not grow up on him, and have never had him anywhere near my favorites. Only what he did makes me feel differently about him, than the other cases mentioned in this thread. I think people have explained the difference between Benoit's actions and any other concrete example from the wrestling world. You're right, there absolutely are concrete differences. But I think for many people the one determining factor is the personal connection they had with the guy. Even if it weren't the case that his misdeeds were more heinous than any other wrestler's, I'd still think that people listing various examples of similar cases and calling out others for having a double standard was both obtuse and obnoxious. But wouldn't it be a double standard if they disregarded one guy because of a crime, and didn't disregard someone else depsite comitting the excact same crime, just because they have a personal connection with him? I understand that you cry more when a member of your family dies than when you hear about the death of someone you've never heard of, sure. It's human. But for the sake of this particular exercise, that would be a big time double standard to me. ... It cannot be in this particular case however, because not one of the cases people have brought up (that have been proven to be true) are remotely close to the Benoit case.

I don't feel any different about him for that reason. I did not grow up on him, and have never had him anywhere near my favorites. Only what he did makes me feel differently about him, than the other cases mentioned in this thread. I think people have explained the difference between Benoit's actions and any other concrete example from the wrestling world.

I agree with a lot of that post, but the obvious problem with this line of reasoning is that people begin to use it as an excuse for bad behavior. A friend of mine dates someone who treats her like shit, cheats, manipulates, uses, and because she has read books about autism she has self diagnosed him as suffering from mild aspergers and uses that to explain why she tolerates his awful behavior. You eventually end up at a point where nobody is willing to take personal responsibility for anything because they are under the belief they are suffering from some kind of mental illness. Everything from murder to rape to just plain unpleasant behavior is seen as merely a symptom of their illness and they are able to go on acting that way without ever believing that they personally have done anything wrong. I have ADD but I cannot use it as an excuse for not getting projects in on time at work, to use a more flippant example. Chris Benoit's brain was clearly fucked up by all accounts, but there are many other people who have been in that position and not murdered their wife and child. Mental illness may in part explain his behavior but it does not excuse it. The study of mental illness is not about excusing actions, but understanding, explaining and possibly avoiding them. This is a big moral issue to get into and I'm not sure we as a collective are quite the right group to do so. So I'll say up front that we should all be ready to just back out of this discussion at any time and go back to focussing on what we all share a love for: wrestling. It sounds like your friend may be right, that her date is suffering from some sort of autism. That may explain his actions, but not excuse them. And it doesn't make it better that she stays with him. Her choice to stay, despite all the things she's trying to explain away, probably has more to do with her own unresolved issues than with her date. She should take the time to figure that stuff out first. And yes, her date may be of sound mind and just be a tremendous asshole. Your ADD may not be an excuse for not turning in your projects on time, but if you're able to do that and still function pretty well, then your ADD is not all that bad. If it was debilitating, then it would be something that you should get help with, and it would be reason to find a job that suited you despite your problems. It may not be an excuse for not doing your work, but it may be reason for finding other work that becomes you better. And obviously Benoit's mental state (which seems to unqestionably have been the reason for the horrible murders) is not an excuse or something that can trivialize what happened. But it seems to very likely be the clear explanation. And recognition of this is what can help avoid something similar happening again. Ignoring that extremely important factor (that it was not the work of an evil individual who might as well have done it twenty years earlier) is extremely damaging and potentially dangerous. It's never a good idea when analyzing things to only focus on the effect and ignore the cause, because you stare yourself blind on the argument that "no matter what anyone says it doesn't excuse the action". The difference between explain and excuse is too big, and wars have been fought because some people couldn't separate them.