Why are you using his non-kayfabe name in a thread about wrestling? You think you impress The Rock?

Really hope Batista goes up again Terry Bollea next round

:rant:

Haha

I wasn't thinking about Benoit's World Heavyweight Title run, to be honest. I was thinking about how many more people gave a fuck about Benoit in WCW/WWF from about 1996-2000 than have ever watched a Batista match. Benoit may not have been the top guy, but he's always been significant and heavily featured, and he was actually quite important during the WWF's 2000. It's kind of swept under due to the vanilla midget/size/lack of personality stuff that was always an excuse to keep him out of the top role.

I think you can argue about whether or not that proved to be accurate or whether it was a self-fulfilling prophecy, but I was basically thinking about how more important Benoit is overall, especially when you add in stuff like his skill, his classic matches, his legacy, etc.

This goes back to the "What was the best match of WrestleMania III?" thing I've heard Al Snow talk about. Most would say Steamboat vs Savage. If you could have ONLY had one match between Steamboat vs Savage and Hogan vs Andre on that card though, Steamboat vs Savage can fuck right off.

Well you could say that about any upper midcarder from that time. There were way more people watching wrestling in general. Benoit was never a focal point while business was booming though. He was a side attraction. Not the guy you depend on to sell tickets. Like I said, Batista wasn't a huge star either but when put in the exact same position a year apart, Benoit brought business down and then Batista brought it back up.

But if I'm basing my views of wrestling on what Al Snow thinks that means I give a shit about some jobber.

What you're saying is strictly true, but I just want to challenge perspective on it a bit:

* In 1995 Benoit was part of the classic Super Juniors tournament, which will live on in history as a high point in a very shitty year, and an event that changed the direction of wrestling. From that moment on, smaller guys had a place in the business as attractions. "Side attractions?" Sure. I'll hear that, but when it came to ordering a PPV, you might look at the main event and think "Hmm, maybe," but then you'd see a Benoit vs. someone match and think "That might be worth it," and it's the garnish on the steak in a way that actually helps sell. In my opinion. You can disagree with that, and it's hard to prove, per se.

* In 1996, Benoit and Sullivan had that great match around the time the nWo were coming up. WCW was the nWo angle and then you had some great wrestling to supplement it. Extremely important, and Benoit was crucial to that; not just specifically a benefactor of wrestling getting hot. You had hot wrestling, and then you had Benoit helping to help keep those eyeballs hooked.

* Benoit was an important player in WCW. There was a definite ceiling imposed, but he even got to the World Title. He was this feeling of "potential" that was always there and helped get past some of the turgid shit. He did some great stuff with Saturn, Raven, the Horsemen, etc. Not A1 level stuff, but arguably significant. He was a talking point for anyone watching wrestling. He wasn't just a "good little hand."

* When the Radicalz jumped in 2000, people forget how important Benoit was in there. Triple H was obviously the top heel, and he wasn't letting that spot go, but Benoit helped contribute to same insanely hot stuff on Raw, during the WWF's best year, and he was in a few PPV main events that did quite well that year. Rock vs. Benoit at Fully Loaded drew about as much as the Rock/Hunter Iron Man Match did. Granted, Fully Loaded was kind of a "three-pronged" show with Taker/Angle and Triple H/Jericho too, but this idea that it was all Rock and Triple H is a bit of a WWE revisionist myth. Benoit was in the Unforgiven main against Rock, Undertaker and Kane too, and that got over 600,000 buys, which is phenomenal for a PPV of that stature. Yeah, Triple H/Angle was a big program for that too (and burst the bubble a bit with the disappointing ending), but Benoit was up there in the upper mid-card/main event delivering in spades. Rock was obviously 2000 MVP, and you also had Cactus Jack, Triple H, Undertaker's return, Austin's presence looming, Jericho and the rise of Angle, the crazy Ladder Match triangles and even Rikishi being fun. But Benoit is kind of unfairly left out at as a significant player in 2000. Truthfully, probably the most "underrated" guy in 2000, just based on what he actually did, how effective it actually was, and how it's remembered as mid-card stuff when it really wasn't, by and large.

* Benoit/Angle was such a great WWE Title match at the 2003 Royal Rumble, and while it's obviously the Rumble, and the title match "doesn't matter," the match itself was phenomenal and changed the perspective on Benoit. He went from being potential to being a guy that everybody wanted to root for. After Raw had had a turgid year, eyes were on SmackDown, and the show got 585,000 buys, which was lower than the previous two years, but actually better than the 2000 Rumble, and marginally better than the one Batista won.

* Yes, you get to WrestleMania XX vs. WrestleMania 21 and the Backlash PPVs, and you've got a direct comparison that favors Batista. I'm not going to argue against that. But also consider the feeling of each Mania. Yes, XX was "special," and did have huge matches, but going into WrestleMania 21, things felt more "positive." There were obviously going to be crowning moments. The end of Triple H, the rise of Cena, the Money in the Bank had me excited (which Benoit was part of), and Michaels/Angle was so much fucking fun and shat on the build for anything heading into WrestleMania XX. The build for Mania 21 was just way better, in my opinion. Even the promotion for 21 felt "energized." XX was "the 20th WrestleMania." Oh, and here are some big matches, but they've been quite haphazardly thrown together, and also Brock and Goldberg are both probably leaving. Am I making excuses? Yes. But there was definitely a different feeling going in to WrestleMania XX than there was WrestleMania 21. One felt like things would emerge from it, whereas the other felt like things were wrapping up, in a sense.

* When it comes to the Backlash stuff, one was Batista vs. Triple H, in a follow-up grudge fight to a cathartic changing of the guard, and the other one was Benoit vs. Kane in the semi-main. Just throwing that out there.

Batista is definitely a success. This is actually a toughie. I was as excited as anybody about him kicking Triple H's ass at Mania 21. I was worried that he wouldn't have legs, and he did get stale, but he was a top guy for as long as he was around, and did spend several years at the top. Not all of them raging successes, but easily up there with Cena in terms of his importance. He was the A2 guy. That's a great position and when he turned heel, it reinvigorated him just as he was leaving. Maybe he could have done even more? A few more years at the top holding fort and there might be more stats to support him. But I think for him to beat Benoit, those spikes need to be much higher. He's not exactly Goldberg doing 9.buttfuck ratings and drawing massive PPVs when no one else could. He was just a WWE style guy that got a good push, it worked, he was a player, then he went away.

Now, if Batista came back for that speculated full-time run? Given his position in Hollywood now and the fact that it'd be nice to have a fucking man in the house, I can see him actually being hot. Like, he immediately jumps into that league with Brock, Cena and Reigns of guys that people are actually paying attention to in the casual sense. With the right push against the right opponent, him busting his ass, a successful title reign that helps things feel credible and fresh? Those are more achievements into the portfolio that strengthen an already great case for Batista. But there are two ways of looking at it right now:

1. Batista was a legit WWE main eventer, and whenever that happens, no matter how slumped business is, you've got consider those points ahead and he was a "star," whereas Benoit was a mid-carder who got the belt and it didn't exactly work out.

2. Benoit actually had a very significant mainstream North American wrestling career where he mattered far more than a lot of people, looking to protect their own significance and ego, give him credit for, and while he was never the A1 guy, and maybe couldn't have ever been, was far more important in the overall presentation and success of WCW during its upswell and the WWF during its hottest year. Luck? Could anyone have done? Probably not, really, because Benoit was actually a really, really great professional wrestler, and someone that helped bounce out the entire product by being pavlova while everyone else was steak.

When it comes to "Better Wrestler," I think that drawing power is absolutely crucial. But Benoit's New Japan stuff is going to have significance 50 years from now, whereas Batista's WrestleMania 21 win might even be seen as trivial. Benoit had a long career of not just being a good mid-card wrestler, but arguably the best technical wrestler in the world and someone that you always had to keep an eye on because he could change the game at any point in time. I think "Better Wrestler" is subjective enough to take that potential, history and perspective into equation.

I'm not just saying Benoit because his matches were more to my cup of tea and he was around for a long time and got the World Title twice and that closes enough of a gap with a real star. I'm saying that Benoit was really a generation's star through performance. And ultimately, when I'm deciding this thing, I look at who I would rather want on my roster. And when it comes to a choice between Hulk Hogan and Chris Benoit, I obviously go Hogan, because I want money and attention. But when it comes to Batista and Benoit? I'm seriously thinking I'd go with Benoit, because he's not going to get me more attention than Batista out the gate, per se, but I'm going to choose other powerhouses or draws over Batista, for example (say, Brock, Cena, Hogan, Austin, Rock, etc.), so Batista's not the best in that role anyway, so I'm really casting an A2 or B1 role, and I'm going Benoit in that position, because of his skill, legacy, history, and proficiency in that station.

TL;DR:

* I think Benoit was a better upper mid-card wrestler/occasional main eventer over the course of a significant career than Batista was as a main event guy over a shorter and less...remarkable career?

Batista may have had better spikes, but Benoit was dependable even during high-wire situations, despite what people think about him being "vanilla." And I don't think Rock vs. Batista necessarily draws more than Rock vs. Benoit. But I do think that Batista vs. Jerry Buttfuck is going to draw more than Benoit vs. Jerry Buttfuck. Does that make sense? Batista is inherently a bigger star, but Benoit can work with guys who draw money as well as Batista can, when he stops mattering to a certain point.

I will say that if Benoit was never over-pushed and just remained the midcard title workhorse I probably wouldn't be as down on him but it's tough to ignore. If we're putting them in perspective though then yes, Benoit was better at his role than Batista was at his. I just don't think his role was ever as big of a deal. I forgot about the stuff in Japan. I think you overrate him elsewhere though. I don't think he was as important to WCW during the NWO run as you remember. Even in keeping eyes on the product, he was just one of many guys putting on quality matches on the undercard and the importance of those matches in making people stick around is debatable. I also remember thinking the feud with Rock for the title had him seeming out of place. It was really a Rock vs Shane feud with Benoit playing the part of the hired gun. Except he didn't have the intimidation factor to pull it off and it was odd.

Also the Backlash main event for Benoit was a WrestleMania re-match, too. The Kane stuff came later.

Noids argument is pretty strong

I'm also of the mindset that the ability to put on a good technical wrestling match is completely useless if you don't have an engaging personality/character/aura about you that makes me invested in the outcome. So regardless of where it is on the card, I'll take the guy with the personality and sub-par wrestling ability any day.

It's the "good B player vs the average A player" argument that's come up before in these. I can see where he's coming from but, in this situation, the fact that they were put in identical positions within a year of each other makes it tough not to compare when judging who did their job better.

Crossface Chicken Wing/Tazzmission/Asuka Lock

You raise a good point with that over-pushed thing, but just to flip it, maybe a bigger problem is that he wasn't pushed harder sooner? By the time you get to WrestleMania XX, Benoit has already been, somewhat, typecast as one of those WWE mid-carders, and it did kind of feel like an honorary mention win. A lifetime achievement award, if you will. When Batista ascends, he's relatively young in the business (although not in age), is fresh, and is kind of a "a new hope."

The way WWE presents stars is important too, because Benoit was never "theirs," whereas Batista feels like one of those "WWE prototype" wrestlers, and that is always going to skewer how fans who get used to how the WWE presents people, even if it's not always strictly true. Benoit doesn't feel like a guy they were ever behind, so it's easier to just throw him in the "didn't draw" basket, when he actually never really failed. People kind of bought him at whatever level, even if they did buy into Batista more when it happened, and it felt like a better "WWE fit" instead of "bizarro land."

I appreciate that I am somewhat arguing hypotheticals here. The mere suggestion that Benoit could have been more obviously means that he wasn't. But if there were certain people willing to stay out of his way a bit, and they weren't so insecure about his talking (which did suck, although he did have charisma), then maybe he actually means a lot more with a harder push, and then when you need to push him hard, it's not weighted by years seeing him with soft pushes.

I may not be making myself completely clear on the WCW/WWF stuff: I get that it was never truly about him, but he always felt like that rising star, or an emerging talent, or one of the best in the world. It's not really like the mid-carders today where you kind of think "Sami Zayn could be a lot more." Benoit felt like he champing at the bit almost every time he went out there. Upper mid-card programs that stole the show, put into top factions, depended on to be that wrestling heel (or babyface) that kind of floats the show.

He never really seemed like a turn-off until they actually decided to change gears with him in the twilight of his career, and even then, the different wasn't exactly gangbusters. If we were talking the drawing potential between Benoit and say, Ultimate Warrior or Goldberg, then I'd have a lot more trouble making this argument. The gap is too wide to ignore. But with Benoit and Batista, it's more "the journey was more important for Benoit, so the destination was slightly more underwhelming than it was for Batista." But I do find it hard to say that Batista meant more for wrestling, because odd-feeling or not, Benoit was involved in significant stuff at a time when it was making huge money, whereas Batista was involved in more significant stuff at a time that's probably not going to be remembered as golden years.

In many ways, the argument for Batista is kind of based on potential too, because he looked like he could have been a huge conventional wrestling star, but he really just ended up being a WWE Main Eventer.

I get where you're coming from, and I think we see each other's points, but I think Benoit was a better B-player than that, and it was pretty apparent he could play A at certain times. That's where we're really disagreeing, and it just comes down to your opinion of Benoit.

Fuck the draw, I'm picking who's better.

I refuse to use this as evidence. Raw ratings don't matter because Batista was on Smackdown, Show me the smackdown numbers

Anyone who likes Chris Benoit should be BANNED

Batista was on Raw through winning his first World Title at Mania. He got drafted to SmackDown sometime during summer 2005 and brought the World Title with him with Cena and the WWE Title going over to Raw in that same draft.

Yeah, he was on Raw for months as champion. Nearly as long as Benoit was as champion. It's an exact comparison. And during that time, ratings went up after falling with Benoit the previous year.

It would be had benoit main evented while he was champion.Sadly as is the norm now the title was midcard for 100% of that reign. Benoit never had the show built around him for even a second.


Chris Benoit vs Eugene or Kane were hardly contenders. The main events were H and HBM.

The first PPV main event after he won the title was against HBK and HHH again.

And it was more about the HHH vs HBK feud

It was the main event. And Benoit was heavily involved in the feud.

If you wanna give him a pass once he started feuding with Kane, that's fine. If you're arguing that the build to Backlash and the eventual match shouldn't count because it wasn't about him, you're looking for excuses.

Im not talking about one show im talking about his whole run. He mained one ppv. (Unless he and Orton was main...was it?) The mania rematch. He wasnt the focus of raw either. To say he was is dishonest.

Well, you did say the title was midcard for "100% of the reign".

I already said if you wanna ignore his reign once he started feuding with Kane, that's fine. There's still a direct comparison before that where Batista brought ratings up while Benoit was bringing them down a year earlier in the same situation. To ignore that because he went on to EVENTUALLY not defend the title in the main event is looking for an excuse.

34 Days.

Thats the entire span of him as a maineventer. Your want to back an argument based on 34 days go ahead but its dishonest and everyone knows it.

Read the original post. I'm basing it on more than just the build from WrestleMania to Backlash. Both men were in identical positions that entire time. From the Rumble on. One was working to some extent. One was not at all. The only reason the post-WrestleMania thing came up as a bigger deal than the rest is because Helmsphere said the ratings don't count because Batista was on Smackdown. He wasn't. So they do. Also, that "100% of his reign was midcard" is blatantly dishonest and everyone can see it. So that was probably a bad word to use as a knock on me...

There's a big difference between Triple H vs. Shawn Michaels w/ Chris Benoit and Batista vs. Triple H in the continuously destruction of The Empire. Backlash '05 also had Hogan & HBK teaming up -- a very clear semi-main.

You can say they're excuses, but that can you can make excuses is kind of the point. There's not that much difference between them. In fact, the source that I'm using has both the 2004 and 2005 buys as almost exactly the same (320,000). And Vengeance 2005 was also treated as a bit of a super-card, with Angle vs. Michaels and Cena defending the WWE Title as well.

I think you've still got a long way to go before you prove that Batista is a significantly bigger draw.

Speaking of SmackDown ratings, I did take a little peak at the SmackDown ratings after Batista jumped over from Raw to SmackDown. It actually had negligible effect, and ratings actually went slightly down. Batista joined basically exactly half-way through the year, which is convenient. The first six months of SmackDown averaged 3.31. After Batista jumped over, they averaged 2.78.

I didn't argue he was a significantly bigger draw. The whole discussion literally started with me acknowledging that Batista wasn't a huge draw but he was bigger than Benoit. Arguing the storyline is subjective, too. The fact is Benoit made Triple H and HBK tap clean over the span of a month on PPV. After winning the rumble from the #1 spot. That's not exactly making a guy an afterthought. He was booked strong as fuck.

As for Smackdown ratings, I don't see what that has to do with the discussion. Ratings probably slipped on Smackdown because they went from Cena to Batista. And Cena was a bigger draw/had more appeal than Batista. Again, I never argued that Batista was a huge draw.

The period between the Royal Rumble and WrestleMania was shorter than it was for Benoit, but he averaged 3.81 on his Mania chase. Batista was at a 3.9. I don't know if you'd call that a super-massive increase. It's definitely better, don't get me wrong, but I still don't see where this "Batista was definitely a bigger draw than Benoit ever was and ever could be" is coming from. Especially considering Benoit has competed on as many million dollar drawing PPVs as Batista, headlined as many of them, and has been on higher drawing B-PPVs over a much longer and more consistent period.

Okay, so then what does he have over Benoit?

You've brought up very good talking points that have made me think and really engage with this, but I'm struggling to see a Batista > Benoit argument in any sense other than a select few PPVs that were kind of built off the back of them fucking up with everyone else over a three-year period. Ratings didn't hold under Bats for any sustainable period, his lead is overblown, and Benoit main evented shows in the Attitude era and has had more classic matches that have literally changed the business.

It's getting to look more and more like a slam-dunk when you take your eyes of Batista's classic WWE look.

A) That highlighted part is obviously a strawman. You're better than that, Goddammit. I'm arguing that he was better in the same position a year later. I mean... we CAN argue whether he's a bigger draw than Benoit ever could be. But that quote is just... come on.

B) Where are you getting this info that Benoit has headlined as many "million dollar drawing" PPVs as Batista? Firstly, I don't even know where to look for how much a PPV has drawn money-wise but I'm pretty sure a million dollars isn't a benchmark or anything. But if you just mean he's headlined as many PPVs that have drawn a lot of money as Batista I have my doubts that that's true.

A) Sorry, I did not mean it literally or to misrepresent your point. I think you can try and make the argument, but it gets shot down pretty quickly.

B) I meant million buy PPVs. They both headlined zero. They were a part of about the same amount though, I believe. WrestleMania X-7 goes to Benoit. WrestleMania 23 featured both of them. WrestleMania XXIV had Batista on it. When Batista came back for WrestleMania XXX, they had switched to the Network, and I doubt it would have gotten 1 million anyway. The Rock gets those numbers, and he wasn't advertised to wrestle.

My point basically is: drawing power is a wash. Basically. Batista performed slightly better in 2005 than Benoit did in 2004, but not in any sort of demonstrably "he's a bigger star" sort of way. Maybe merchandise separates them a lot? I haven't really studied that as much, but I definitely saw kids walking around in Batista shirts.

It might be different now that Batista is a genuine celebrity, but I just don't think, over the wrestling portion of their careers, you can argue that Batista is a bigger star. The data just isn't there.

A) I don't think it would but I don't really wanna get into the whole "vanilla midgets can't draw" thing right now. lol

B) WrestleMania 21 drew over a million. WrestleMania 20 did too though. A million buys is a tall task either way. If you're using that number to judge guys, it's always gonna be tough to compare regardless of who the guys are because it just happens so rarely anyway. And as far as shows that they've just been on that drew a million, it doesn't really matter. If simply appearing on a card is relevant, we've gotta bring Benoit's "midcard" stint as champion back into consideration. And we've also gotta give Stevie Richards credit for appearing on some cards that drew a lot. You can only really compare headlining.

As for merchandise, I think we can agree just by the eye test without having to try to find stats, Batista more than likely wins that one though, right?

There is not a single piece of Bautista merch that stands out.

B) For whatever reason I had lowered those two PPVs in my head to 800,000 buys or so, but those are the later ones. My bad.

I do recognize your point with Benoit's "midcard" stint, but I think Benoit played a much more featured role than you're acknowledging. And this is where our big difference in opinion comes in. Because while I do agree that it's basically down the headliners (at least, it used to be -- Triple H and Roman Reigns didn't fill up WrestleMania 32), I really do believe that Benoit meant a lot more in his "wrestling" position than most other guys ever have.

Go back to WrestleMania X-7. Sure, Austin and Rock are selling that, but you also had Vince/Shane which got ample story time, and even Taker/HHH that had no real build, but felt like a "big" match. I do think you then need to give supplementary credit to the TLC, Benoit/Angle and even Chyna/Ivory as a pay-off. I'd then put the Hardcore Title up there (for its Kane and Big Show/"fun" environment involvement) and Jericho/Regal being a nice little program. Eddie/Test and the RTC stuff probably wasn't anywhere near as meaningful, nor was the Gimmick Battle Royal. So I don't think you give Repo Man or Steven Richards as much credit there. But Benoit helped support that show and make it more than just a "one match card." The midcard really helped carry shit at times, especially when it was someone like Benoit.

I'd give Batista the same credit for his Evolution stuff against Rock and Fole at Mania XX. And his stuff with Undertaker at 23, and even Umaga at 24. It's more than just "we need a match," it's "we need to feature this guy." I wouldn't call it a "drawing" argument, so much as it is a featured performer who matters most in that sort of role kind of argument. I think a super-card with Austin vs. Rock and Chris Benoit vs. Chris Jericho has a good shot at drawing more than Batista vs. Chris Jericho in that undercard position. Benoit's worth as a "great wrestler" is severely underrated as to how it translates to casual audiences, in my opinion.

I'm usually not the one to appreciate a good technician but watching Benoit wrestle was great.

And I think that was the "casual vibe." You always knew you were "great wrestling" with Benoit and the ilk. Mainly Benoit.

Benoit was the far better wrestler AINEC.

I figured a poster of your intellect to be above the lazy use of internet acronyms in place of words. For shame, sir. For shame.