Mark Henry's career stats:
1 vs. 1 Matches:718 Wins:377 Win%:52.5 Losses:320 Loss%:44.6 Draws:21 Draw%:2.9
Chris Benoit's career stats:
1 vs. 1 Matches:1148 Wins:738 Win%:64.3 Losses:350 Loss%:30.5 Draws:60 Draw%:5.2
Even in 2011 - the alleged 'prime' Henry era, his 1 vs. 1 record from his transfer in April 2011 to SmackDown until his injury in April 2012 was W:39 L:46 D:7 (and many of those wins were against 'greats' like Yoshi Tatsu, Zack Ryder, John Morrison, Great Khali, Zeke, Johnny Curtis, Vladimir Kozlov, Bobby Heller and Chavo Jnr).
From January - December 2004 - Benoit had the following 1vs. 1 record: W81 L:15 D:3.
So much for the 'prime' argument!
It's funny that you've taken none of that into context. After his title reign, Benoit was on fucking Heat beating up Rodney Mack and Tomko, and wrestling guys like Rob Conway. He drew against Eugene, a comedy ******. I can go on.
And more often than not, Henry's losses were DQ's because of his savagery and not major matches, like you said. Benoit's losses were nearly all pinfalls. Henry was almost never beaten clean during that period. Also, his prime ended at Royal Rumble 2012 because he left the main event scene after.
If you going to use statistics, at least use some context.
Putting stock into a prime argument that consists of a small time span is one thing if the wrestler has had a short career. When someone has a career of 15 yrs + being mediocre at best, then that small time frame considered 'prime' needs to be pretty epic. People are talking about Henry's prime as if he was Goldberg or something. He was a good monster heel for the 'B' show, but epic it was not.
So I am supposed to put more stock in his little run than an entire consistent career by Benoit? No.
The run that everyone considers Henry at his prime was not really all that impressive. His most credible threat was actually Orton who they used to help legitimize the push by dropping the title. Show was used just like he usually is. Act like a giant but remember to make the other guy look good. Ultimately even that wasnt working too terribly well because they kept adding someone else into the picture for most of his feud with Show. (ex: Daniel Bryan & Sheamus) Plus they even re-used the Lesnar superplex spot with Henry\Show basically saying "Hey, this guy is a monster. No, really. Forget all the years of comedy- he's scary now."
The Hall of Pain was a great catchphrase. It really was, because without it this whole push would not have been the same. Problem is who he was running through as they built Henry up. Not exactly the biggest names. Kozlov, Khali, Big Zeke, Johnny Curtis, Morrison, etc. Along the way they fed him Christian & a few others but mostly in random Tag matches to offset things till Show came back to continue the feud. Then we are back to the Daniel Bryan thing & well, we all know the rest.
So what we have are 2 guys who never necessarily set the world on fire with their main event title runs, but one got WM & one did not. One who has been as solid of an upper mid card competitor you can get -vs- one who had potential, but never really did much other than being a good comedic 'hand'. One is an international wrestling star with a dark ending & one is a weightlifting star who transitioned to a mediocre wrestling career.
Since we are somehow throwing out the fact Benoit actually beat Henry, then we are just left with comparing career accomplishments. Benoit still wins regardless.
Both guys were mid-carders for the majority of their careers. If this was a battle between them at their mid-card stages, Benoit would win. But in Henry's prime, against a prime upper-midcarder Benoit, Benoit would be exactly the kind of guy to be inducted into the Hall of Pain, just like the other upper-midcarders that got inducted. Not to mention, Henry in general has the advantage in a match because of his strength and size. Benoit's style is not very effective against a prime Henry.
The superplex spot made Henry look like a monster. It showed the immense amount of power that Henry had, and it was a great conclusion to a decent battle of the beasts. The story was the monsters trying to conquer one another, with Henry attaining the K.O the first meeting, Henry getting DQ'd the second time and a final war for the title in a chair match, where Henry lost and destroyed Big Show for Bryan to cash in.
All of those names apart from Morrison and Johnny Curtis (and even then, a case COULD be made as the NXT winner for Curtis and former ECW and Tag Champion Morrison) helped convey the point of the Hall of Pain. The monsters (You forgot Kane) all naturally helped Henry establish him as the King of the Monsters and it helped showcase Henry's immense strength. It's what made the feud between Show and Henry surprisingly very compelling. Those monsters were credible threats that were destroyed. Then Henry moved onto destroying the upper-midcarders before dominating the main-event scene until Big Show returned.
This isn't a tournament to determine how consistent someone is, otherwise people would just say "Rocky Maivia" or "The Ringmaster" when they argue against Rock or Austin. It's a tournament to determine who has the tools to survive in a tournament environment. Both of these guys could beat multiple guys in the first round, but Benoit has a rotten draw against a guy who could power out of his submission holds, can't be suplexed by Benoit, and strikes do very little unless coming from another monster. The 2004 mach didn't mean jackshit because Henry meant nothing at that point. When he actually mattered, his run at the top overshadowed Benoit's run at the top.
