Jingus Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Do you really need to go to this much trouble to prove Scott Keith wrong? All you would have to do to convince me that Scott Keith said something wrong would be to say, "Scott Keith said something."Yeah, but it's always fun to stick a pin or two into a windbag like that. Self-proclaimed "experts" who make a ton of egregious factual errors are the worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 It's October, so he's reposting his old Halloween Havoc rants. This allows me to revisit perhaps my all-time favorite SKeith-ism: his claim that Stan Hansen was washed-up in 1990. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 It's October, so he's reposting his old Halloween Havoc rants. This allows me to revisit perhaps my all-time favorite SKeith-ism: his claim that Stan Hansen was washed-up in 1990. Funnier that Scott didn't write these at the time (1990) but instead as a RetroRant reviewing old PPVs. So if he had a clue, he would have been aware of Hansen's 1993 campaign... except of course he's clueless. Â John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Do you really need to go to this much trouble to prove Scott Keith wrong? All you would have to do to convince me that Scott Keith said something wrong would be to say, "Scott Keith said something."Yeah, but it's always fun to stick a pin or two into a windbag like that. Self-proclaimed "experts" who make a ton of egregious factual errors are the worst. Exactly. And also to give people info if they care to hammer him over the head with it on his current website.  John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruiserBrody Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 He tends not to respond, or just calls you a troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 So many is a few dozen at the most. Probably hundreds more if you count try outs More like a few thousand every year. Â So what do you think a better analogy would be? Â I don't think there's any easy analogy. Chigusa was primarily seen as an athlete. In the mid-80s, the only Japanese female athletes with any sort of profile were (I'm guessing) the women's volleyball team, gymnasts and figure skaters, but none of them had their own weekly TV show where they were part actress, part idol, part athlete. I think if you're going to compare her success with someone from the US you might as well compare her to other wrestlers not a singer or an actress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 Well, from Dave's description of her, Chigusa's popularity at her peak is incomparable to just about any wrestler ever, especially in the U.S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 I doubt very much that Chigusa was as popular as Hogan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 Wouldn't Mildred Burke have probably been more popular at her peak? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 Dave has said that Dump Matsumoto was more well-known at her peak than Steve Austin ever was. But I think you have to distinguish between name recognition and drawing power. Everyone may have known who the Crush Gals were, but they only really drew from a niche audience, albeit a highly passionate one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 I assume Dave is basing that on something like television ratings, which again isn't a straight apples and oranges comparison with the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLIK Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Everyone may have known who the Crush Gals were, but they only really drew from a niche audience, albeit a highly passionate one. Eh true but you can say that about almost any wrestler who's gained a lvl of "mainstream" stardom. Â Also, worth noting that when Chigusa came out of retirement in 93 she was still somewhat of a draw and up until her re-retirement in 05 was headlining several shows that drew between 3000 - 9000 per year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 Wrestling historian Scott Keith on Halftime Heat: Â It cost them a lot of money and it BOMBED in the ratings. I don't think anyone is foolish enough to counterprogram the Superbowl now, even Vince McMahon. Â Edit: Apparently "bombed" was too strong a word. I guess I meant "scored a giant rating". I always get those two confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted October 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 Even if it had bombed I don't get how WWE would've lost money on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 As an aside Vince doing commentary for that show and speaking to the audience as if they had never seen wrestling before was so so strange. I can remember people online being outraged over that. I know they were trying to hook casuals/first timers but it came off so poorly and patronizing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted October 16, 2012 Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 I could have sworn everyone knew it was wildly successful. On a lark, I went looking for the rating using a rather obvious Google search (Halftime Heat rating)... hmm... first item on the results... Â Though the majority of title changes would take place on Raw, SmackDown!, or pay-per-view events, the WWF Championship changed hands on a special "Halftime Heat" that aired during the half-time of Super Bowl XXXIII on January 31, 1999 when Mankind defeated The Rock in an empty arena match to win the title. This special episode received the highest rating of Sunday Night Heat with a rating of 6.6 Yow... that's even better than I thought. The thing went 19+ minutes long. I suspect USA and Vince were over the moon that they were able to pull a 6.6. Â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSLnN-SBJDU Â John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Halftime Heat was a really smart idea. Put on a big unique match between two of the top stars at a time when people are looking for anything to watch other than the Superbowl Halftime Show. They promoted the hell out of it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Double Post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Super Bowl counterprograming was fairly common in the 90's, doesn't seem to be as much of it these days  I still remember watching Halftime Heat with a party of 20 or so people. A handful of us were wrestling fans, most people in the room just thought it was totally ridiculous and laughed at all the grunting and noises Foley was making Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boondocks Kernoodle Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Vince doing commentary for the match, half-heartedly putting over Rock as a heel but mostly in his old "WHATAMANUEVER" mode was just weird. I know JR was out with Bell's Palsy at the time, but did they not trust Cole enough to get over whatever talking points they wanted to push to their intended casual audience? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Super Bowl counterprograming was fairly common in the 90's, doesn't seem to be as much of it these days  I still remember watching Halftime Heat with a party of 20 or so people. A handful of us were wrestling fans, most people in the room just thought it was totally ridiculous and laughed at all the grunting and noises Foley was making Janet Jackson's boob made the halftime show must-see TV again.  The worst part of halftime heat was the ridiculous close-up they had on Rock while Foley was lowering the forklift on him. That got a lot of groans in the room I saw it in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricR Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 No, her gross shriveled titty didn't make it must see. Super Bowl panicking and stop desperately trying to be hip made it must see. Because that made them go out and hire awesome established live bands like The Stones, Prince, Paul McCartney, Tom Petty, Springsteen, The Who, etc. Â Janet Jackson made America wish they were watching Up With People. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 The finish of Ryback-Punk at Hell in the Cell has almost become a Shawn-Bret Survior Series type question in terms of booking yourself into a corner. Â Despite Linda's imminent election and the finish of Flair-Luger Great American Bash 1988 sucking hard he wants this finish: Â Traditionally in wrestling, a referee stopping the match due to excessive bleeding doesn't change the title. So that would be a terrific way for a babyface to beat the hell out of a heel without having to lose and still keeping the title on the heel. I have no idea what this random thought could apply to, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted October 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 He means the Bruno blood stoppage finish being done with a heel champ, not the Luger-Flair/Lawler-Kerry finish. Â Former is the champ being bloodied and losing to set up a rematch but not dropping the title. Â Latter is a fuck finish screwing the babyface as he's about to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 Brock attack is the best finish though it won't happen. Â Second best option - which is dog shit - is probably some weird situation where Punk gets out of the cage and doesn't come back. I'm thinking he could hit a GTS on the ref to save himself and then when they try and get a new ref in he splits. It's horrible, but arguably a better option than a (clean) loss for either guy. Â Actually Cena hiding under the ring and turning on Ryback would be an awesome WTF, though it's borderline Russo-ey and probably unwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.