[spiderarms]

Srehm#1, I agree with you on alot of things, have many of the same favorite fighters and enjoy your contributions to this site but it is clear to me that how we evaluate the Top 10 Fighter rankings is different. You can find my responses below:

Originally Posted by srehm1

I always thought it odd that he didn't seek a rematch against both fotiu and wensink. Say what you will about whether they were bad losses or not. He lost. Those two fights may be the worst losses of his career-although they were good fights and fairly close-certainly not draws by compubox numbers (that was for you BS25!). Fotiu being a ranger and their rivalry and the bruins being the other toughest team on the block certainly would have lent some creedence to a rematch. Plus the fact that as bigjack and others mention there is fotiu getting in wilson's face and no fight or response from wilson.

IMO, both of these fights vs Wensink & Fotiu were being won by Wilson until the big blows at the ends of each one of the fights. The loses were narrow at best.

Rematch? To me, a rematch is essential when you don't fight up to your potential, lose to a lesser opponent, get embarassed or beaten bad. Neither fight had anyone of these factors. That is why I don't think Wilson needed to "avenge" anything.

They were both very close fights and a foundation of RESPECT, NOT FEAR, was laid between the fighters. I may also note that Wilson was in his ROOKIE year when he fought both John Wensink and Nick Fotiu. In the case with Wensink it was his 4th fight in the NHL. Do you really wonder how the results would have been in a REMATCH with a more seasoned Behn Wilson for both Wensink & Fotiu?

With regards to the comments about Fotiu getting into Wilson's face:

Was anyone here at HF.COM on the ice to hear what was said between the two?

As I'm sure you know, all of us are very much restricted to limited available video on the careers of our favorite fighters over the years. We are missing alot of the pieces of the puzzle. I'm sure over the next few years as more becomes available, we will all have to revise our viewpoints about alot of things!

If Nick Fotiu really wanted to fight with him, all he had to do was shove his glove in his face, which we all know he didn't do. As they say, it takes two to tango.
They didn't fight because neither one wanted too!

By the way, I like Nick Fotiu for alot of reasons, unfortunately he gets hyped so much on here he suffers for it with alot of our posters. My advice is don't take it out on the fighter!

It takes a lot of balls to come back and avenge a loss. to me the ability to avenge a loss or big loss is one of the things that makes a true champion. Wilson never avenged ANY of his losses no matter how big or small they were. Never went after bert wilson again, never went after fotiu, wensink mcclelland snepsts etc. maybe he thought they were capable of beating him again and that's why he didn't avenge them. Maybe he was one of those guys who would let a close loss go in order to keep from losing even bigger in a rematch. Who knows? but to simply walk away from those losses without a hint of avenging them is one of the differences between him and someone like probert or Brown in my eyes.

[b]I disagree. Revenge is the biggest and easiest motivation a fighter can have, the bigger the loss or embarassment, the bigger the drive to avenge it. Whether or not he can carry it out is another question and in the case with Probert he did because he was a great fighter. But as I stated before, it still doesn't erase the original bad loss IMO.

For the record, Behn Wilson did not lose to Bert Wilson or Harold Snepts, they were both draws. McClellan was a close decision.

IMO, the most important measuring stick to being champion is winning and losing, it is not a beauty contest or character evaluation. Your accountable everytime the gloves come off for as long as they do.

A few of the greats from wilson's era also only had a few losses or a handful. Jonathan only lost a few, fotiu, wensink, etc. these guys don't get near the mention as #1 all-time. i think had these guys played in the probert/brown era-they would have lost plenty, just like probert, mcsorley, domi grimson etc. this speaks to how good an era is. saying wilson only had a few losses and no one else can claim that is saying more about how much weaker wilson's era was compared to the probert/brown era.

What stands Wilson apart from Fotiu, Wensink, Jonathan etc is that he did it crossing over eras, had a better fight card, beat who he was supposed to beat, never lost in a demeaning manor and maintained the highest level of skill til the day he retired with his back injury. This is very difficult to say when Stan Jonathan is one of my all-time favorites.

Wilson fought many of the same top guys Probert/Brown fought and in some cases faired better and because he was so sound both offensively and defensively, I can say that no matter what generation he fought in, when you dropped the gloves with Behn Wilson, you got a top flight performance each and everytime and were always in danger to be hurt. His high intellect would make him adaptable to the 90's and beyond.

I agree with you that Wilson and Probert/Brown were all different in their demeaner. Probert/Brown were more intense, nastier and definitely had more of an edge. This is a style I personally prefer. I also liked their enforcing skills and how they protected their smaller teamates. This is why I like Fotiu, Gillies and O'Reilly so much as well.

But if I'm rating them strictly as fighters for the All-Time NO#1 position then I have to take into account their entire career, and BIG LOSES definitely play into my equation no matter what era they fought.

This is why whether I like him or not, I rate Wilson as the best.