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

[NSL]

Wow, so that actually happened, huh? Guess I should have gotten involved while the poll was still open. I sincerely hope every person that decided not to vote for Benoit because of his crimes consistently votes against people for things that happened in their personal lives through out the tournament. Sid stabbed a man TWENTY times with a pair of scissors, better not see you vote for him. Scott Hall killed a man in a bar fight, guess he's out. Dynamite Kid was an All-Star caliber woman beater whose wife once locked herself and her children in their home with the plan to kill herself and them just so they wouldn't have to live with him anymore. Carlos Colon covered up the murder of Brusier Brody and then pushed the murderer as his country's biggest babyface months after. I could keep going here. Point is that's some ass-backwards logic to use. Roman Polanski fucked a 13 year old girl, yet that doesn't mean we all just pretend like Chinatown isn't a good film, that's not how it works. If you can't separate the person from the performance, that's on you man.

If you want to vote against Benoit because of his lack of mic skills or charisma, that's fine, that makes sense (I mean, it's wrong and if you watch the intensity of his 2000 promos you'd realize that, but whatever floats your boat).

And to whoever said Ambrose was better in the ring as Moxley, no, he wasn't. I watched a lot of Moxley on the indies before he came to the WWE, and his main work was always CZW where, you guessed it, he worked garbage hardcore matches with very little in the way of matwork or technical prowess. I feel like you didn't actually watch Moxley on the indies if you say something like that. Ambrose is probably one of my favorites in the WWE right now and I see big things for him but there's no fucking way he beats Benoit. Benoit can put away Triple H and HBK clean in the most famous arena in the world in the main event of what was the biggest Mania ever at that point, but he can't put away Dean Ambrose? The fuck out of here with that nonsense.

Motherfucker. Showed up a little late. But alas, you are my spirit animal. Must be the birthday shit.

I could go on and on, and waste my breath here, but I won't. What's done is done, and there's 45 people who should be highly ashamed of themselves. Ambrose got the win here, so I fully expect him to now have a deep run, considering he's now thought of as a better-all around performer than CHRIS FUCKING BENOIT.

Ugh. You people make me sick.

 

[Khalifa]

I looked over the rules for this shindig, and I couldn't find word one concerning which criteria people are expected to use to place their votes. Maybe it was a rule in the past; to that extent, the UFC used to allow eye gouges and dick punches. It's also possible that I've overlooked it, as I've only looked through the stickied threads.

Well the idea of the tournament would suggest we are picking the best. If we wanted popularity then everyone would be in the same poll. X, I and others have stated that if you think Ambrose is better from a wrestling standpoint then that is fine. We don't care if you vote that way. If you are using outside the ring circumstances to suggest that Ambrose is better then we don't agree.

The obvious confliction for basically the whole thread is that one side is it to killing the business while the other side is saying we are talking about what he has done/can do/will do in the ring. I think everyone just needs to agree to disagree.

 

[Rayne]

Hey, that's the same way some of us feel when we get told to ignore our humanity for the sake of a message board professional wrestling tournament!

 

[Rayne]

Well the idea of the tournament would suggest we are picking the best. If we wanted popularity then everyone would be in the same poll. X, I and others have stated that if you think Ambrose is better from a wrestling standpoint then that is fine. We don't care if you vote that way. If you are using outside the ring circumstances to suggest that Ambrose is better then we don't agree.

The obvious confliction for basically the whole thread is that one side is it to killing the business while the other side is saying we are talking about what he has done/can do/will do in the ring. I think everyone just needs to agree to disagree.

Which says nothing about what criteria someone is expected to use in casting their votes. If there's someone out there who's casting votes based on who makes the better Eggs Benedict, are they breaking any rules? Or just annoying people who believe people 'should' vote a certain way?

 

[NSL]

Which says nothing about what criteria someone is expected to use in casting their votes. If there's someone out there who's casting votes based on who makes the better Eggs Benedict, are they breaking any rules? Or just annoying people who believe people 'should' vote a certain way?

You can't be this stupid, can you?

It's a tournament involving professional wrestlers, so why would you vote for anything not involving their abilities to be a successful and entertaining professional wrestler?

Ambrose was entertaining, to a few, in CZW. And, you can't argue it's more than a few, because CZW just doesn't have a large fanbase, and most people that watch, watch for the car crash, not for the race. Benoit entertained to millions.

As X pointed out...Benoit was good enough to win the title over HHH and HBK at Madison Square Garden at the biggest wrestling show ever to that date.

Ambrose's biggest accomplishment so far is...wait...it's...no...that's not it...hm...maybe...nope. Can't think of one.

 

[Prince Vee]

Ambrose does have that charisma which of different than any others. His character portrays how his life was when he was on the streets. When someone is ready is exhibit the truth of it, they certainly are going to be over. That's why he has this huge fanbase than any other, because his character isn't hypocritical. Even if he turns heel, it isn't going to change. But here we are voting on the basis of whole package, in-ring skills, mic skills, charisma and overall achievements.

In that context, Chris Benoit overtakes him by some margin. You see, like NSL mentioned, he had that tenacity to create a Wresltemania moment for himself at the MSG. He takes over Dean Ambrose in the in-ring skills quite comfortably, albeit Ambrose's matches do have such intensity which keeps us entertained to watch. Perhaps Dean might edge out Benoit on Mic Skills and Charisma. Considering all the facts, and leaving the real-life incidents behind, Chris Benoit would win. There's no question in that. But if we talk about Dean Ambrose vs Chris Benoit as in of real-life, many of us who had voted for Benoit is debatable.

 

[Rayne]

I ask again, NSL; if someone feels that the person who makes the best Eggs Benedict would be the better professional wrestler, what rule prevents them from casting their vote along those lines?

If this is a 'should' or 'well I think' argument, save it for next year and take it on the arches.

 

[NSL]

I ask again, NSL; if someone feels that the person who makes the best Eggs Benedict would be the better professional wrestler, what rule prevents them from casting their vote along those lines?

If this is a 'should' or 'well I think' argument, save it for next year and take it on the arches.

Common Sense. That rule. Or, well it should, but for a moment, I forgot I was on a wrestling forum.

You shouldn't need to be told "Vote based on wrestling criteria". You should pretty much get the gist when you're logging on to wrestlezone.com, to post on a wrestling forum, about a wrestling tournament, involving wrestlers.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

I miss Kermit's method of voting from last year. Eddie Guerrero beat The British Bulldog in a game of Flappy Bird due to Mexican food leaving him on the toilet and therefore having more time on his hands than Bulldog.

Since Chris Benoit can't play games in Hell I'd assume the round goes to Ambrose.

Too harsh?

Maybe we shouldn't get so serious when we're talking fantasy then.

 

[Rayne]

Common sense has you down 45-42, unless we decide to start quibbling over the meaning 'common'. Bold whichever words you feel are necessary.

Any empirical arguments here, or are we staying in Should-land?

 

[Navi]

Motherfucker. Showed up a little late. But alas, you are my spirit animal. Must be the birthday shit.

I could go on and on, and waste my breath here, but I won't. What's done is done, and there's 45 people who should be highly ashamed of themselves. Ambrose got the win here, so I fully expect him to now have a deep run, considering he's now thought of as a better-all around performer than CHRIS FUCKING BENOIT.

Ugh. You people make me sick.

I'm not highly ashamed of myself, why would I be. Can't speak for the other 44 but I'm sure they aren't either.

Being taken to task has put me right off voting in the rest of the rounds. I haven't said one fucking word to anyone that voted for Benoit, because that is your choice to make, but holy shit enough has been said to those of us that voted for Ambrose.

Kudo's to the guys that put this whole thing together, I know it's supposed to be a good time and all, but just not worth it. Hopefully next years will be better. I'm done.

 

[NSL]

Common sense has you down 45-42, unless we decide to start quibbling over the meaning 'common'. Bold whichever words you feel are necessary.

Any empirical arguments here, or are we staying in Should-land?

Common sense is voting on a wrestling match based on wrestling. I'd guess that 40 or so of the 45 people who voted for Ambrose weren't voting for Ambrose as much as they were voting against Benoit. And that's stupid. For those that believe there's a heaven and hell or whatever else, I'm sure you're not going to get to the pearly gates and be shunned because of a vote on a fake fucking wrestling match because one guy is clearly superior in every sense of the word.

I'm done with this thread. The match is over. I'll save it for the next round.

I'm not highly ashamed of myself, why would I be. Can't speak for the other 44 but I'm sure they aren't either.

That's your prerogative to feel, or not feel, shame. I know, myself, I'd feel pretty silly for essentially wasting a vote to troll a better wrestler, because of something that had nothing to do with his wrestling career.

Being taken to task has put me right off voting in the rest of the rounds. I haven't said one fucking word to anyone that voted for Benoit, because that is your choice to make, but holy shit enough has been said to those of us that voted for Ambrose.

I believe I've only replied directly to you twice, and both of them were based on wrestling arguments. One being Moxley as Ambrose's high point. I don't recall the other. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure you kept it based on wrestling, so there would be no need to "take you to task".

Kudo's to the guys that put this whole thing together, I know it's supposed to be a good time and all, but just not worth it. Hopefully next years will be better. I'm done.

Thanks. Wait...

 

[Rayne]

So this is about your opinion of how people are supposed to vote, then, that's all? We're just calling it common sense so it's not as personal?

That's the thing about the 'common sense' defense, people only seem to haul it out to support an otherwise unsupportable argument. 'Common sense' has such a curious habit of always agreeing with the person who brings it up.

 

[NSL]

So this is about your opinion of how people are supposed to vote, then, that's all? We're just calling it common sense so it's not as personal?

That's the thing about the 'common sense' defense, people only seem to haul it out to support an otherwise unsupportable argument. 'Common sense' has such a curious habit of always agreeing with the person who brings it up.

Did I say "common sense" was to vote for Benoit? Please find where I said that. I said that "common sense" was to vote on a wrestling match based on wrestling ability.

Yes, Chris Benoit committed murder. But, does that change that he had one of the best finishers in the history of the business? Or that he could wrestle a solid match with anyone put in front of him? Or that he beat two of the guys who will probably be in the final 8 of this tournament, on the biggest stage there is?

 

[Rayne]

I didn't accuse you of saying that, did I? I accused you of attempting to dictate the criteria that people were supposed to use to vote, throwing a tantrum when you didn't get your way, and being unable to defend your arguments beyond some nebulous idea of 'common sense'.

 

[NSL]

I didn't accuse you of saying that, did I? I accused you of making up the criteria that people were supposed to vote based on, throwing a tantrum when you didn't get your way, and being unable to defend your arguments beyond some nebulous idea of 'common sense'.

I wasn't making up the criteria. I was stating that the criteria should be common sense enough that it doesn't need to be spelled out in all 127 matches that we're voting on a wrestling tournament. If you want to hold a tournament based on personal character, then feel free to, and we can discuss Benoit's character, as well as everyone else's that's included. I'll even help you put it together.

But this isn't the place for that. If you think that Ambrose goes move for move in a match with Benoit, and comes out victorious, then use that as your argument. You'd be wrong, but it would make more sense than "Well Ambrose hasn't killed anyone, so he wins".

 

[Rayne]

Tell me why this isn't the place for that, WITHOUT using an example that relies on your own personal interpretation of the rules.

 

[NSL]

Tell me why this isn't the place for that, WITHOUT using an example that relies on your own personal interpretation of the rules.

I've repeated myself a number of times. This is a wrestling tournament. We're arguing whether Wrestler A would beat Wrestler B in a wrestling match. What does what they do outside of the ring have to do with that? Does Cena win the entire tournament then, because of the amount of charity work he's done? Or does he win based on his in-ring ability?

Benoit is one in a long line of assholes that have existed in the wrestling world, and as X pointed out, he's not the first, and won't be the last, implicated in a murder. I think he's a waste of life for what he did. But, this is a wrestling match.

If you really need to take into account what he did, then shouldn't the argument be, that Benoit would beat Ambrose because he would roid rage and strangle him with a cord from a weight bench?

 

[Rayne]

You've repeated several times what YOU feel the criteria for selection should be. Do you have any arguments, at all, as to why anyone should give a wet fart as to your opinion?

If there is a rule for this tournament telling people the criteria they should use, by all means link it and I'll concede the point. If this is just you trying to dictate rules because you can't handle the way a vote swung, we can pick this up at the same point next year.

 

[NSL]

You've repeated several times what YOU feel the criteria for selection should be. Do you have any arguments, at all, as to why anyone should give a wet fart as to your opinion?

If there is a rule for this tournament telling people the criteria they should use, by all means link it and I'll concede the point. If this is just you trying to dictate rules because you can't handle the way a vote swung, we can pick this up at the same point next year.

Are you really that obtuse, that you're completely missing the point of what I am saying? The criteria for selection, as far as who gets included in the tournament, is based on a list of 128 wrestlers that is submitted directly to KB. Those lists are built entirely on who we (yes, I was included) think are the best wrestlers. Benoit fared quite well, earning himself an 8 seed, meaning he was in the top 32 overall. So, if the wrestlers are being selected, based on their in-ring work and wrestling career, then why would they be voted on for any other reason?

This is not me trying to "dictate the rules"; this is me saying you're not understanding the spirit of the tournament. The tournament is to determine who is the best wrestler. That's why I suggested you start a tournament based on who had the best personal character.

If this were a debate on any other sport...say baseball...would you vote for the best team, based on the character of their players? Or vote for the team that would win the game?

 

[Rayne]

I'm not missing your point. I'm disagreeing with its validity.

Is there ANYTHING which does not require someone to use your personal opinion about 'spirit' or 'common sense' that you can use to support your belief as to the criteria for this tournament?

For what it's worth, the 1919 Chicago White Sox had one hell of a lineup, but I'd still vote against them. Unless it was stated that on-field performance was the only criteria to be used, a case which does not apply here.

 

[NSL]

I'm not missing your point. I'm disagreeing with its validity.

Is there ANYTHING which does not require someone to use your personal opinion about 'spirit' or 'common sense' that you can use to support your belief as to the criteria for this tournament?

Are you really that obtuse, that you're completely missing the point of what I am saying? The criteria for selection, as far as who gets included in the tournament, is based on a list of 128 wrestlers that is submitted directly to KB. Those lists are built entirely on who we (yes, I was included) think are the best wrestlers. Benoit fared quite well, earning himself an 8 seed, meaning he was in the top 32 overall. So, if the wrestlers are being selected, based on their in-ring work and wrestling career, then why would they be voted on for any other reason?

I'm not going to keep typing the same thing, so I'll just start quoting myself.

And then, because the wrestlers were selected based on their careers, it's not farfetched, at all, to say that Benoit would win a wrestling match against Ambrose. We're not arguing ballet, or cooking ability, or fashion sense...We're debating a wrestling tournament.

Why would you use any other criteria, when it comes to voting?

 

[Rayne]

You can quote yourself, but it doesn't make your arguments any more valid. I'd quote myself too, asking for you to provide anything besides a personal opinion on how things should be run, but I'm on my phone and the mobile version of the editor is kind of meh.

In answer to why someone would use any other criteria, well, that's up to their opinion, and if it isn't breaking the rules of this tournament, it's nothing more than sour grapes to you. As far as my PERSONAL choice, it's because I rate myself as a human being before I rate myself as a professional wrestling fan. I will take a similarly hard line towards anyone else in this tournament who has murdered their families.

If there is a rule I have broken in my reasoning, quote it and we can call this 44-43.

 

[NSL]

In terms of who I'm voting for, I'm backing Benoit. While Benoit's time at the top may have been short, and involved the help of a character more popular and only slightly less fucked in the head than Benoit himself, at least he's actually had time at the top and has far more accomplishments and big wins to his name than Ambrose.

Maybe next year, Ambrose will have raked in enough to contest Benoit. But right now, Benoit has a distinctive advantage.

Dean Ambrose is a terrible Wrestler. I've said it before and I will continue to say it until he actually starts to show some development on his move set. Chris Benoit killed his family? Yeah, thats an atrocity. But he was still an amazing Wrestler. The guy was as close to the perfect technical Wrestler as there probably ever has been. What's more, he has the talent and brutality to meet browse and play him at his own game.

There is simply no way that Benoit shouldn't win this.

Long and short of it.

Chris Benoit in the ring was an animal matched only by the likes of Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar. I love Dean Ambrose. He's one of the few guys that I'm a legitimate mark for, but unless this is a hardcore match, he ain't beating Benoit. Benoit could pull that Crossface out of nowhere, and this being the first time these two meet, I doubt Ambrose could prepare for it. Benoit can undoubtedly stay away from a DDT.

Perhaps had this taken place after Mania with Ambrose beating Lesnar, I might find this closer, but I don't see Ambrose hanging around with Benoit for a prolonged period of time in a wrestling match. He'd get caught eventually like everyone else has.

This. Ambrose is all attitude, minimal skill. An edgy indy brawler who got a big break when hired on & eventually put in to The Shield. I hate to agree with Madden on most things, but he is right in saying how terrible Ambrose's working punches are.

Benoit is light years ahead of Dean in talent & his intensity trumps wacky lunatic any day of the week. Will Ambrose get better? Hopefully. He is entertaining & has probably another 10 years in ring ahead of him, so he should eventually. As it stands now, Benoit takes this. He chops away, hits some suplexes and makes Ambrose tap.

......................................................God forgive me for what I'm about to do.

I'm an Ambrose mark, and a mildly intelligent human being who realizes that those two aspects tend to clash with each other. I love to see Dean win, but can he please stop doing that fucking stupid rebound off the ring ropes? So his opponent just thought that he was falling through the ropes and thought "This is a good time to stand prone while internally gloating over this latest accomplishment."

Chris Benoit, yeah. This is like arguing on behalf of allowing history to honor flying aces of the Luftwaffe, but here goes.

Chris Benoit had an amazing career, and he inspired many young men to stand up for themselves and challenge the roid-jacked status quo of the prowrestling world. Dean has a looong way to go before I'd consider him ready to take on a prime Chris Benoit.

Do we even need to examine a comparison of accomplishments? No? Thank GOD! I'm going to go say some Hail Marys now just on principle, but I'm going to Hell for this. Vote Benoit.

Benoit does win this, but there is a reason I left him off my list. He almost killed the wrestling business along with his family. When you do that kind of damage to the sport, it is hard to call you an all time great. So shame on me I guess.

Dean may have one of the longest US title reigns in history, but it was so forgettable and he rarely defended it. It was more of an accessory than anything else. He was an okay IC champ during a time when the IC title has been greatly devalued. He is likely going to surpass the accolades that Benoit had, but for now when you look at their resumes, Benoit takes it.

I voted for Chris Benoit because I think he had a much more fruitful career and had far more impact on the industry; positive as a worker and negative with the personal decisions he chose to make. But Dean gets kudos from me for taking the weed eater spot in CZW. Not many have.

Not considering his actions outside the ring, Chris Benoit is simply the best wrestler. His in-ring ability, techniques, smoothness in the ring are of different level than the superstars of the PG Era. But I'm in a dilemma to choose between Benoit and Ambrose because, Ambrose is extremely talented both ring wise as well in the mic. He has an unique charisma which had attracted a huge fanbase, that the WWE universe hasn't seen in the recent past (Aside from Daniel Bryan's fan base)

Still I would go with Chris Benoit because, he is a former world champion and had achieved more in the ring than Dean Ambrose. He has one of the best Wrestlemania moments, that alone could be a reason why I go with him.

Why the hell are people bringing up Benoits crazy acts that had nothing to do with wrestling in a wrestling match? Oh you guys have principal? It's like one of those people that say littering is terrible and nobody should do it only do walk past litter on their way home after throwing their cigarette butt on the ground. Think about the bigger picture.

How does Dean beat Benoit in a fight? He has weaker looking punches than Jeff Hardys! He does a stupid fake falling out the ring thing about 3 times a match which is worse than John Cena winning every match, his signature is probably the weakest looking finisher on the roster and he has done nothing in WWE to prove to me that he should beat someone that won a main event of WrestleMania against Mr. WM himself and HHH. That should be enough of why Benoit can destiny Ambrose in a second.

I can't believe how pissed off i am that Dean Ambrose is beating Benoit in votes. Just disgusting.

I am a massive fan of both and this would be an immense match. Indeed, there is a clear contrast. For me, Benoit is one of the greatest in-ring performers of all time. Looking back, he was a trend-setter and a massive influence for the generation to come. Benoit was a guy who could wrestle in any country, in any style and (it is not an exaggeration to say) in any era. His issue, however, was his limited promo ability. Not as bad as some would suggest, mind you.

Ambrose is a contrast. His promo ability is fantastic. Just like Benoit in the ring, Ambrose is a complete natural. As his career progresses, we will see more of his range but he will be remembered (I'm sure of it) like a Punk or Jericho who could cut any promo, at any time. His issue, in my opinion, is his in-ring work. He has been stagnant since The Shield broke up and has only put on a handful of great singles matches, with the majority coming against the same guy.

In terms of drawing ability, it is difficult to say. Ambrose has already spent longer than Benoit as a main-eventer but, in absolute terms, he hasn't reached the same heights. In one or two years, Ambrose wins this. At the moment, he falls into the same category as Bray and Roman where it is too early for them to win these matches. Right now, Benoit deserves to win for his better career and far greater influence.

Not everyone is looking at it as a popularity contest. A lot of people are simply going by who the better wrestler was or who would win a match between the two. To say Chris Benoit was a better wrestler than Dean Ambrose is not a sin against humanity. Obviously Benoit's actions were reprehensible but that doesn't mean all of a sudden he was a terrible wrestler. I realize this may be a poor analogy my UK friends but if we had a poll about who the better NFL running back was and the choice were OJ Simpson or Curtis Enis who would you vote for? OJ's tarnished reputation over the past 20+ years does not erase his NFL accomplishments. This poll doesn't ask who was the better human being. It asks who wins this match. I believe if these two wrestlers met in their primes Benoit would win. Does that make me a bad guy?

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

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.

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.

I'm shocked to see Ambrose winning this. Benoit really is erased from people's minds.

Ambrose turning the tables against Chris Benoit when Reigns and Rollins have already lost is simply.. meeh.

So Chris Benoit, a 2-time World Champ, 5-time US Champ, 4-time IC Champ, 6-time Tag Champ, Royal Rumble winner, one of the most over babyfaces in the last decade, a true veteran. Problably one of the greatest in the ring of all time is going to lose to.. Dean Ambrose?

If that arguement isn't strong enough, then how about this:
Dean Ambrose is facing Brock Lesnar at Wrestlemania. Dean has no chance in hell of beating Brock Lesnar. Do you know who has beaten Brock Lesnar? Multiple times, if my memory serves me correct. Chris Benoit. I think he also made him tap in 2003.

So please put Benoit in front of Ambrose here. In 2 years, Ambrose will probably be a possible finalist, but right now? He shouldn't pass from Benoit.

I've never understood the love for Ambrose he's really nothing to write home about. Benoit however is one of the most technically sound wrestlers I've ever seen, arguably one of the top 5 ever in such a category. Benoit got over enough to be heavyweight champ, in the main event of Wrestlemania no less which is a lot more than Ambrose has accomplished up to this point. Benoit held damn near every title he could ever hold and actually made it to the top of the card. All his issues as champ came down to the fact that WWE for some reason wanted HHH, a guy who was literally a cancer to WWE television at the time (02-04) to be on top when he really had no right to be at that point in time.

I get Ambrose is popular, I get he plays a better character than Benoit ever did (which admittedly is very important) but at NO point in his career was he better than Benoit and he probably never will be. Ambrose at his height wasn't half as popular as Benoit was and from an in ring perspective he isn't half the wrestler Benoit is. I don't care for Ambrose, I don't hate him but he has no business winning this match and it's truly headshaking that he's actually winning this match right now because he has no business doing so.

Wow, so that actually happened, huh? Guess I should have gotten involved while the poll was still open. I sincerely hope every person that decided not to vote for Benoit because of his crimes consistently votes against people for things that happened in their personal lives through out the tournament. Sid stabbed a man TWENTY times with a pair of scissors, better not see you vote for him. Scott Hall killed a man in a bar fight, guess he's out. Dynamite Kid was an All-Star caliber woman beater whose wife once locked herself and her children in their home with the plan to kill herself and them just so they wouldn't have to live with him anymore. Carlos Colon covered up the murder of Brusier Brody and then pushed the murderer as his country's biggest babyface months after. I could keep going here. Point is that's some ass-backwards logic to use. Roman Polanski fucked a 13 year old girl, yet that doesn't mean we all just pretend like Chinatown isn't a good film, that's not how it works. If you can't separate the person from the performance, that's on you man.

If you want to vote against Benoit because of his lack of mic skills or charisma, that's fine, that makes sense (I mean, it's wrong and if you watch the intensity of his 2000 promos you'd realize that, but whatever floats your boat).

And to whoever said Ambrose was better in the ring as Moxley, no, he wasn't. I watched a lot of Moxley on the indies before he came to the WWE, and his main work was always CZW where, you guessed it, he worked garbage hardcore matches with very little in the way of matwork or technical prowess. I feel like you didn't actually watch Moxley on the indies if you say something like that. Ambrose is probably one of my favorites in the WWE right now and I see big things for him but there's no fucking way he beats Benoit. Benoit can put away Triple H and HBK clean in the most famous arena in the world in the main event of what was the biggest Mania ever at that point, but he can't put away Dean Ambrose? The fuck out of here with that nonsense.

You can quote yourself, but it doesn't make your arguments any more valid. I'd quote myself too, asking for you to provide anything besides a personal opinion on how things should be run, but I'm on my phone and the mobile version of the editor is kind of meh.

I tried not to quote anyone more than once, but that's one quote from every person that supported Benoit in this thread, based on his in-ring ability. And I went ahead and bolded a portion of NorCal's post, where he said basically the same thing I did, about voting criteria. So, no...it's not a personal opinion on what the voting criteria is. If you take the time to read all of these, some of them even say that Benoit the person is a shithead, but they still admit he would win the match.

 

[Rayne]

You're just quoting people who think Benoit should have won. That's not even an argument, that's the 'appeal to popularity' logical fallacy. Which isn't even very effective in this instance; the only thing stopping me from throwing it right back is my own sense of propriety.

You share your opinion with people. I share mine with people. Since you aren't linking anything that states people are required to use certain criteria in their selection, we are once again back to you trying to dictate your opinion as if it were rule.

Once more- I'm not asking what Timmy thinks about the situation, I'm not asking for your personal thoughts on the topic, we have that already. Is there any rule for this tournament which requires people to use specific criteria in casting their vote?