Austin Region, New Orleans Subregion, First Round (8)Chris Benoit vs.(25)Dean Ambrose

[Coco]

Low, even for you.

I could do way worse.

This is why I say take Benoit out of the tournament. Can't vote for him or argue about his career without people acting like we condone him killing his son.

It's not about that. It's about the utter lunacy of pretending that one's "personal choices" (or whatever euphemism you prefer) have no professional impact worth taking into consideration within the context of this tournament.

With criteria as broad as that of this tournament, almost everything is fair game.

And as for almost killing the business, the Benoit situation saved many other people from going through the same thing.

Yeah. On the other hand, he almost killed the business.

Terrible situation but call it what it is.

I've called it exactly what it is.

 

[Dave]

In terms of what you do in your professional life having an impact on the success of your professional career, I sincerely doubt that anyone would disagree with you. However, this isn't the WWE Booking Office. Nor is this a place for disputing the impact of a double murder homicide.

What this is, is a tournament about who would win any given match between the two. If we're talking about who would win a match in their prime, you simply have to go for Benoit. Since his prime was only before he killed 2 people and himself, you have to see that. I'm not trying to defend what he did, no one is.

 

[Coco]

What this is, is a tournament about who would win any given match between the two.

A tournament for determining the greatest wrestler of all time.

A crown which, by definition, Benoit is incapable of holding.

So within this context, Dean Ambrose would obviously win.

If we're talking about who would win a match in their prime, you simply have to go for Benoit. Since his prime was only before he killed 2 people and himself, you have to see that. I'm not trying to defend what he did, no one is.

CNN ratings would argue that Benoit was a bigger draw after his death.

A much easier win for Dean.

 

[Dave]

A tournament for determining the greatest wrestler of all time.

A crown which, by definition, Benoit is incapable of holding.

So within this context, Dean Ambrose would obviously win.

CNN ratings would argue that Benoit was a bigger draw after his death.

A much easier win for Dean.

If CNN ratings determined who would with. This tournament, then it would be the same winner every single year. People determine who should win on their own personal criteria. For me, it is about who would won the wrestling match on any given night. And with that in mind, Benoit is far superior. I think that, even you, would say that Benoit was a far superior Wrestler to Ambrose. Putting aside what he did in his personal life, this is 10btimes easier to call.

You, on the other hand, care more about someone's impact on the business in general; a decent enough reason as any. But that is where the crux of the discussion lies. But you should be aware that impact on the business, good or bad, is a rather short sighted view. Hornswoggle has had a bigger impact in wrestling business than Dean Ambrose. Would you follow the same logic as you are now if both of them were having a match instead? I doubt it.

 

[Coco]

If CNN ratings determined who would with. This tournament, then it would be the same winner every single year.

If everyone stuck to the same rigid criteria every year and in every match, we'd have the same winner every year. Your point eludes me. Ambrose over Benoit is the right choice this year, next year, and every year until Ambrose does something which threatens to kill the business.

No problem with that.

People determine who should win on their own personal criteria.

This seems to be your way of backing off from the discussion. Thank you for conceding defeat.

You, on the other hand, care more about someone's impact on the business in general; a decent enough reason as any. But that is where the crux of the discussion lies. But you should be aware that impact on the business, good or bad, is a rather short sighted view. Hornswoggle has had a bigger impact in wrestling business than Dean Ambrose. Would you follow the same logic as you are now if both of them were having a match instead? I doubt it.

I'm actually part of the camp that would vote Santino Marella over a good portion of the people in this year's tournament and feel comedy wrestling has been unfairly maligned over the years (especially within the IWC).

I'd definitely listen to arguments for Hornswoggle over Ambrose. In fact I'm happy you brought this up and hope it can be part of a larger conversation in future years about the inclusion of women, tag teams (say, the Road Warriors as an act taking up a slot in the tournament), and more comedy wrestlers.

I really appreciate your open-mindedness, Dave. Thanks for speaking up. People have been silent on these issues for too long.

 

[SSJPhenom]

Those voting against Benoit are setting a new precedent. So now, we can hold what wrestler's do outside of the ring and outside of wrestling as a whole against them? Hmmmm.......

This tournament get's better and better year in and year out. Now we can use what wrestlers might do in the future as an argument for them and now we can use what happened out of the ring against them. I love it.

There is no reason whatsoever that pertains to wrestling that Benoit should lose this match. Those of you using his tragedy against him are just doing so to vote for Ambrose. Because that's literally the only way you can justify a win for Ambrose.

Vote Benoit

 

[Khalifa]

So now you know what goes on in my head? You know what I do and don't care about?

For someone who's so concerned about using evidence only observable within a professional wrestling context, I'm surprised you'd limit your observational skills by sticking your head so far up your ass.

Stick to what you know. If that means logging out and never coming back, all the better.

Haha, hectic. All of this I don't kind of understand though.

No I don't know what goes on in your head, but I don't see how that's got anything to do with anything? I was arguing that his crazy events should not be considered when discussing a wrestling match. I have stated plenty of times though that I'm in no way defending what Benoit did.

Even so, many people stated why they didn't vote for Benoit, so I'm not arguing on why Ambrose couldn't win the match based purely on that he is not quite as good as Benoit.

Navi said before that she feels like you can't vote against Benoit because you get called an asshole. I'm not trying to come across that way, no one is. It's just a big topic to debate when someone says Benoit is better in every way but being a good person because he murdered two people, and people obviously have the two furtherest views from each other.

I'll spin Navis statement around a bit but add my own little twist, if you can't vote for Benoit without be called a murder lover then why is he in the tournament. I, as someone who is voting for Benoit this round, think Benoit shouldn't be in the tournament at all if all his accomplishments and in ring ability is torn to shreds because how is he ever going to win. I'm not trying to get Benoit to win and don't care what happens after this round, so just get rid of him for next year.

Also Coco, what don't I know? I'm trying to figure out what I said that was 100% bullshit but I just can't find it.

I might pass on some advice I got earlier in this thread, it's just a fantasy tournament.

A guy who nearly killed the work literally cannot be the best professional wrestler of all time.

Because he is the worst. Ever.

It's that simple.

So yes: Dean Ambrose > the worst professional wrestler of all time. Principle has nothing to do with it. A smart person who takes this tournament seriously would vote Mantaur over Benoit.

That is part of the thing we are arguing. Everyone else's argument for every other wrestler is using examples of them in their prime and are determining the outcome of each match when each wrestler is in their prime, yet Benoit gets the unfair stipulation of him being at his worst.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

That gives his opponent an unfair walk to round 2 making the next round match-up suck that much more.

I don't know about you, but I would rather see Dean Ambrose vs. Bruiser Brody, than Kane vs. Chris Benoit. Sometimes, picking "the other guy" makes for the better match. We missed out on Nakamura vs. Ultimo, in favor of Lawler vs. DDP.

In any case, I'm voting for Ambrose. He's one of my favorites in the company right now, and while Benoit was good, he never came close to being that. Despite his ability, he had no charisma whatsoever and that's why he spent most of his career in the midcard, while Ambrose will go down as a certified legend. I'm pretty sure he's beaten Kane every time they've faced off so I'm gonna argue he should beat him in the next round too. I want him to go all the way!

I also can't wait to see Dean Ambrose vs. Steve Austin in the Austin Region Quarter-Finals. That match will certainly be great.

 

[Coco]

Those voting against Benoit are setting a new precedent. So now, we can hold what wrestler's do outside of the ring and outside of wrestling as a whole against them?

I've explained my point clearly several times now. Your reductive, dismissive bullshit, while entirely in character, is intellectually disingenuous.

There is no reason whatsoever that pertains to wrestling that Benoit should lose this match. Those of you using his tragedy against him are just doing so to vote for Ambrose. Because that's literally the only way you can justify a win for Ambrose.

Benoit nearly killed the work for everyone. Making him the worst worker of them all. I don't care if he's up against Hulk Hogan or Zack Gowen, nothing more ever needs to be said.

No I don't know what goes on in your head, but I don't see how that's got anything to do with anything?

You exact quote:

In better terms, don't pretend to care about something when you really don't.

Words have meaning. If you don't understand the meaning of the ones you're typing, don't type them. It'd be a huge favour to everyone.

I was arguing that his crazy events should not be considered when discussing a wrestling match.

But this isn't about one match. This is about what this tournament is really about. In that larger context, Benoit's actions have meaning. It's obtuse pretend there's separation of church and state here.

I have stated plenty of times though that I'm in no way defending what Benoit did.

Couldn't care less either way. This is about who deserves to win a tournament to crown the best worker ever.

Hint: It's not the guy who nearly shut off the money faucet forever.

That is part of the thing we are arguing. Everyone else's argument for every other wrestler is using examples of them in their prime and are determining the outcome of each match when each wrestler is in their prime, yet Benoit gets the unfair stipulation of him being at his worst.

Benoit's "prime" is a convenient seven month window in a career that spanned two decades. Within that window, he was a flop. Outside of that tiny window, he was on Ambrose's level or lower.

Now make this about more than kayfabe success: An aggregate view of both guys shows one man with a tonne of natural charisma and appeal, and one technically sound drone who almost killed the business.

I can look at the first half of 2004 and play your game, and I still vote for Ambrose. Every time.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

This is a simple one for me, and if anyone has a problem with it too bad.

Dean Ambrose wins this one immediately since he isn't wrestling anybody. He walks to the ring, gets in, and the ring announcer says he wins by default since there's no opponent.

Fucking hell, are you serious with this horse shit? I usually don't knock how someone chooses to vote but this is beyond stupid. It's in the realm of Hogan loses because he can't climb a ladder stupid. Anyone who uses this argument is stupid.


I'm voting Benoit for all the reasons stated and because he entertained me more. Next year I may say different if we get this match but as it stands I'm voting for Chris Benoit.

 

[Sean Valjean]

We can assume Benoit's peak was his world title run. A run where he was, despite having the belt, was still playing second fiddle to Triple H and Shawn Michaels – two men who are better overall performers due to possessing incredible charisma in addition to top notch wrestling ability.

Remember who Benoit dropped the belt to? Randy Orton, a young guy who was a FAR less talented wrestler but utterly destroyed Benoit in the personality department. Orton beat him clean too, when, on paper, Benoit really should have destroyed him. Benoit loss the US Title in two straight falls a rookie MVP – who was a shit wrestler at the time – because MVP was the more charismatic of the two, among other reasons. Benoit has a history of jobbing to guys who are simply better entertainers.

Now who else is a popular, charismatic young guy with inferior in-ring skills to Benoit? Dean Ambrose.

In wrestling, the bigger overall star tends to go over despite their actual skills, or lack thereof. Warrior sucked but got an amazing run. Jeff Hardy beat Triple H. The 2005 "kind of crappy" John Cena beat Kurt Angle regularly. Is it really THAT unbelievable that Dean Ambrose, a much beloved upper midcarder who's poised to become a big main event name, would defeat a bonafide career midcarder with less mainstream popularity like Chris Benoit?

Dean Ambrose is currently the most over babyface on the roster. He's got charisma to burn. There's likely more money with him on top than with Benoit. Given those factors, I'd have to believe he'd be booked to go over Benoit because he simply outshines Chris where it REALLY counts.

As far as the match itself, I'm not saying Dean would destroy Chris or anything. That's ridiculous. I myself stated in the very first post in this thing (which, surprisingly, no one has referenced) that Benoit would beat the tar out of Ambrose. But we've seen that Dean is a tough little bastard who would sooner let Benoit tear his shoulder to pieces than tap to the Crossface.

Dean doesn't need to go hold for hold with Chris to win. He'd get suplexed on his head repeatedly and keep ticking. And just when Chris thinks he's in control, BOOM there's a surprise Dirty Deeds or, more likely, a surprise roll-up or small package, something the technical master wouldn't expect from a dirty brawler like Ambrose. No shame at all in a loss like that to somehow who's simply a bigger star.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I've explained my point clearly several times now. Your reductive, dismissive bullshit, while entirely in character, is intellectually disingenuous.


Benoit nearly killed the work for everyone. Making him the worst worker of them all. I don't care if he's up against Hulk Hogan or Zack Gowen, nothing more ever needs to be said.

So by your arguments, then, you're going to vote against everyone that's brought a negative light on the industry, right?

So you're going to vote against Hogan then in all of his matches, because very few have been more negatively viewed by the media than Hogan. Which, as a result, has brought a negative light on the wrestling industry. Especially for the steroid scandal in the early 90's. Which was, ironically, brought back with the Benoit incident.

 

[Coco]

So by your arguments, then, you're going to vote against everyone that's brought a negative light on the industry, right?

So you're going to vote against Hogan then in all of his matches, because very few have been more negatively viewed by the media than Hogan. Which, as a result, has brought a negative light on the wrestling industry. Especially for the steroid scandal in the early 90's. Which was, ironically, brought back with the Benoit incident.

First of all, I don't think you understand irony.

Second of all, Hogan saved wrestling from the damage done by the steroid scandal. While image-friendly midgets like Bret and Shawn were killing WWF's business in the mid-90s, Hogan reinvented himself in WCW and brought the game to new heights, brother.

So no, I won't be voting against Hogan based on your ridiculous criteria. Because Hogan resurrected the business while Benoit nearly buried it.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

So by your arguments, then, you're going to vote against everyone that's brought a negative light on the industry, right?

So you're going to vote against Hogan then in all of his matches, because very few have been more negatively viewed by the media than Hogan. Which, as a result, has brought a negative light on the wrestling industry. Especially for the steroid scandal in the early 90's. Which was, ironically, brought back with the Benoit incident.

Far be it from me to go to bat for Coco, but you are missing the point of his argument. He isn't saying he voted against Benoit because he was viewed negatively by the media. He is saying he voted against Benoit because Benoit nearly killed professional wrestling as we know it.

Ergo, by nearly killing your profession, you can't be voted the best at it.

What is not to get about that? Coco's reasoning isn't the age of consent law, it isn't complicated.

 

[Tastycles]

Chris Benoit held two world titles. One time, the company he worked for let him walk away, such was their belief in his abilities. The second time he lost clean to a 25 year old heel.

Contenders for world titles in 2004 included main event luminaries like Hardcore Holly. Winners of world titles in 2004 included tag team wrestlers and midcarders like Bradshaw, Eddie Guerrero and, yep, Chris Benoit. The WWE had put all their eggs in Lesnar's basket and he hightailed it to the NFL. So they just tried lots of people out in the main event. And then Cena and Batista came to be real main eventers.

It's not hard to make a case for Ambrose outside of the most obvious, but you should take into account the most obvious.

 

[Khalifa]

Words have meaning. If you don't understand the meaning of the ones you're typing, don't type them. It'd be a huge favour to everyone.

Okay fair point. Although if you think me and you have different opinions on the incident then I think you would be surprised.

But this isn't about one match. This is about what this tournament is really about. In that larger context, Benoit's actions have meaning. It's obtuse pretend there's separation of church and state here.

While I'm not disagreeing with you on the Benoit incident, this would mean this would apply to every other wrestler for this tournament correct?

I have been pretending that this is a one off tournament in which every wrestler is in their prime, I didn't think about what would happen to WZ after it. Now I have to change up my voting though obviously.

Couldn't care less either way. This is about who deserves to win a tournament to crown the best crown the best worker ever

Benoit's "prime" is a convenient seven month window in a career that spanned two decades. Within that window, he was a flop. Outside of that tiny window, he was on Ambrose's level or lower.

Now make this about more than kayfabe success: An aggregate view of both guys shows one man with a tonne of natural charisma and appeal, and one technically sound drone who almost killed the business.

I can look at the first half of 2004 and play your game, and I still vote for Ambrose. Every time.

See now this is something that makes sense. It's not Benoit is better than Ambrose at everything but I'm still voting Ambrose (I'm not saying you said that either). If you think Ambrose wrestling skills/prime are equal to Benoits that's cool. I won't argue with that. Although I do think Benoit had some of his prime quality matches dating back to 2001-2004 (2003 was meh for most of it).

 

[Coco]

While I'm not disagreeing with you on the Benoit incident, this would mean this would apply to every other wrestler for this tournament correct?

As I said at the onset, I intend to be consistent when voting against multiple-murderers who nearly killed the business. Otherwise, this is all a big joke. I'll be voting against Benoit every round. And if a wrestler kills someone(s) between now and the point they're eliminated from the tournament and that revelation threatens the future of professional wrestling, I'll vote against that person as well.

 

[Khalifa]

As I said at the onset, I intend to be consistent when voting against multiple-murderers who nearly killed the business. Otherwise, this is all a big joke. I'll be voting against Benoit every round. And if a wrestler kills multiple someone(s) between now and the point they're eliminated from the tournament and that revelation threatens the future of professional wrestling, I'll vote against that person as well.

Ahh Coco. I love reading these responses, not being the guy on the other end. Your Hogan answer above is what I was looking for. I just need to know because WWE doesn't acknowledge Hogan so I was wondering if he created bad light towards the business. I guess I have my answer for everyone else also.

 

[tdmoon]

This seems to be the hot thread.

I voted for Benoit, but I did have second thoughts about it. Not because of any sort of in-ring ability; if Benoit wasn't a piece of shit murderer, I'd be calling this a squash. I am not real familiar with Ambrose's work but what I have seen didn't impress me. Benoit was very impressive, among the most crisp and solid technically I've seen. He was among my favorites at the time-may have been my favorite. What he did tarnished not only his legacy but the business as a whole.

As I said, I voted for Benoit. I can fully understand somebody who refuses to do so, though, and won't begrudge them for it. I've even seen some strong arguments in this thread about why I shouldn't have that nearly swayed me.

I think I'm usually pretty good about separating the athlete from the actions. There was a good comparison earlier to OJ. I will say this one seems tougher than most and I struggled with it. What I don't agree with are people using Hogan's idiotic statements or steroid use or wrestlers drug use or domestic abuse as comparisons. Those things are stupid and/or just plain wrong. What Benoit did was well beyond just wrong, it was particularly heinous. Doesn't matter what somebody does, there isn't a whole lot worse than a child killer. It drives me apeshit when I see people defending Benoit by bringing up Gagne, too. No, it was not the same thing. Gagne was put in a home because he was mentally unfit to take care of himself. Benoit was working, supporting himself and his family, booking his own travels, and in charge of his own life. I'm not saying he didn't suffer damage and it's terrible that he did. It still does not excuse his actions, though. If you are competent enough to pay your bills and jet around the country, you're competent enough to know that killing your family is really fucking wrong. Poor old Verne's brains were like tapioca pudding at that point, but his body had spent a lifetime of being a badass; it's an unfortunate combination that led to a regrettable killing. Far from the same thing.

With all this said, you may ask why did I vote for Benoit. Only because I believe that here in a forum of knowledgeable wrestling fans, people will realize I'm using tunnel vision and trying to buy into the wrestling in an imaginary tournament, suspending my disbelief to have some fun thinking of some really fascinating wrestling matches. If this were a forum that included mostly casual fans or people who don't know much about wrestling, I'd probably have gone the other way with it and made the same arguments about how he is a stain on wrestling and shouldn't be considered or voted upon.

It did make me feel kind of dirty, though.

 

[Coco]

Ahh Coco. I love reading these responses, not being the guy on the other end. Your Hogan answer above is what I was looking for. I just need to know because WWE doesn't acknowledge Hogan so I was wondering if that created bad light towards the business. I guess I have my answer for everyone else also.

Saying stupid, racist shit blows over eventually. WWE isn't permanently disassociating themselves from Hogan. They'll be promoting him again in due time.

Double murders don't have the same statute of limitations.

The two aren't in the same ballpark. It's not even the same sport. So I feel no guilt in applying my standard and voting against Benoit this round.

Go Ambrose.

 

[SSJPhenom]

What is not to get about that? Coco's reasoning isn't the age of consent law, it isn't complicated.

What'd I tell you Coco. This place is oh so predictable.

Benoit is a better wrestler. Vote Benoit.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

PaRT of the voting process here is supposed to be legacy/impact on the buisness. Coco's points are valid.

Even with that, Benoit is still that much more superior to brose that he deserves the vote.

Ambrose is honestly sort of shit, Benoit is one of the best ever.

I'm not sure if Ambrose has ever won a match, we're Benoit has beaten the mount Rushmore of guys who were....selective of who they put over. This was pre-Daniel bryan. A guy that short going over clean for the big belts was absurd.

Ambrose has accomplished next to nothing, while Benoit did it all.

 

[Prince Vee]

Benoit has held the World Championship which Dean Ambrose never had. He had also been the best technical wrestler a couple of times as per Wrestling Observers. Dean Ambrose is entertaining albeit with skills much inferior to Chris Benoit. Vote Benoit.

 

[Coco]

Benoit has held the World Championship which Dean Ambrose never had.

Jack Swagger vs Jake Roberts would be a fun match using this standard.

And then you can account for Swagger being a better "technical" wrestler than Roberts.

Roberts is entertaining, albeit with skills much inferior to Swagger.

People shouldn't vote like this. I think others have done a fantastic job explaining why Benoit's world title runs aren't all that worthy of monumental praise. And does "technical" wrestling really make someone a better wrestler?

No. The answer is no.

None of what you've discussed is cause for voting Benoit over Ambrose.

And, I should mention this in case you've all forgotten, Benoit is the worst professional wrestler of all time.

 

[Tastycles]

Benoit has held the World Championship which Dean Ambrose never had. He had also been the best technical wrestler a couple of times as per Wrestling Observers. Dean Ambrose is entertaining albeit with skills much inferior to Chris Benoit. Vote Benoit.

Vince Russo has been a world champion. Evan Bourne and Necro Butcher have won one of the Wrestling Observer Newsletters World's Greatest [genre] wrestler award. Ambrose is entertaining in a business of entertainment.