"He's ambitiously stupid" - Why Scott Keith's new book is scary bad

[Matt D]

They should have had Lex cut a promo burying Flair, calling him a coward and had Barry come out to defend him, if they were dead set on the heel turn.

Or they can go with my AMAZING Black Scorpion idea.

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

Maybe I spoke too soon. I checked the Observer from the week before that Clash and there was this line:

 

Probably around late November, with the house show situation reaching a new low, the decision was made to go back to Flair. Whether it be just as an interim to groom Scott Steiner (who from all accounts doesn't want it in the first place and he doesn't want to break up his tag team with his brother) or segue into Lex Luger, or as a longer term while someone else is groomed or while nobody else is groomed and wheels simply spin, Flair was going to get to tie the hallowed record of Harley Race as a seven-time champion.

So maybe there was something to Skeith's claim? Or at least the idea was considered.

[Loss]

It's something, but it's still not Flair wanting to put him over.

[jdw]

Dusty also was in the WWF "around late November", not WCW.

 

John

[kjh]

Usually there's a grain of truth to the hyperbole SKeith twists it into, hence the title of this thread.

[NintendoLogic]

While screwing around on WC, I came across a quote from the 9/1/92 WON that I thought was interesting given our discussion about Chigusa/Madonna parallels: "I recall in 1987, the first time I saw the group live, that the workrate was exceptional, but the audience was there for Chigusa-mania as the building was filled with young girls dressed like Chigusa Nagayo with haircuts like Chigusa Nagayo and screamed and cried like crazy for when Chigusa Nagayo was being brutalized by Dump Matsumoto."

[BruiserBrody]

http://rspw.org/faq/4-keithfaq.txt

[jdw]

Why the link? You don't expect us to read that whole thing, do you?

 

John, noting that the list of contributors does bring back memories... for better or worse.

[Matt D]

Here's how Dave Meltzer, editor

of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter, has described

the 5-star rating system

 

***** Match of the year candidate

 

****1/2 An almost-perfect match

 

**** Excellent

 

***1/2 Extremely good

 

*** Good

 

**1/2 Better than average but nothing special

 

** Average

 

*1/2 Below average but not atrocious

 

* Pretty bad, but at least some action

 

1/2* Terrible, but at least a high spot in there somewhere

 

DUD Of no value

 

-stars Not only terrible, but completely offensive to

the ticket-buying public

Did dave actually come up with those descriptions?

[jdw]

Dave's changed his ratings a bit over time. He listed something along those lines a few times in 1983 when talking about it, and has on occasions later. For quite some time it was along these lines:

 

 

***** All-time Great

****1/2 Match of the year candidate

**** Excellent

***1/2 Very Good

*** Good

**1/2 Above Average

** Average

*1/2 Below Average

* Bad

1/2* Terrible

DUD Of No Value

 

Then he'd go into negative stars when really pissed at a match.

 

Through about 1992, ****1/2 was the MOTYC threshold, even if he got confused when typing up a list like this of what they all mean. 1993 sort of blew things up with quite a few ***** and ****3/4, thought 1992 was tipping in that direction by the end of the year.

 

I think if one looks at his ranking list in the 1990 Yearbook, block off where they list splits up in stars, then go back an look at some of his comments during the year in describing some of those matches at MOTYC, it's ****1/2+. I think he had two or three at 5 that year, a very few more at ****3/4, and perhaps a total of ten to a dozen combined over ****1/2+.

 

John

[Matt D]

What interests me there are the references to spots and action, which does sound like early Dave to me.

[El-P]

Didn't Cornette come up with this ?

[jdw]

He credits Cornette. But star ratings go back in other forms of entertainment before it was applied to wrestling. Rolling Stone gave star ratings to records. It's common in movie review: you'll find Ebert using it back into the late 60s / early 70s. Restaurants?

 

John

[khawk20]

He credits Cornette. But star ratings go back in other forms of entertainment before it was applied to wrestling. Rolling Stone gave star ratings to records. It's common in movie review: you'll find Ebert using it back into the late 60s / early 70s. Restaurants?

 

John

Hell, I did them on my match lists for my original video tapes off of TV circa 1983-84. It made sense to note the better stuff as the number of tapes grew. Star ratings (and a highlighter) did that nicely. I always assumed anyone else that saved stuff on tape rated it too.

 

Perhaps Cornette developed the explanations for each star in the chain?

[MikeCampbell]

Cornette says he came up with it as a half joke to his friend Norm Dooley who was doing a newsletter and simply saying things like good match, terrific match, excellent match, etc. So he suggested that Norm do star ratings like TV guide did for movies.

[Bix]

On Ken Shamrock:

JR calling the most Italian stereotype in the history of Italians an “Irishman” because of his adopted name is hilarious.

He couldn't even bother to check Wikipedia on this one? Ken's birth name was Kilpatrick. He IS Irish.

[kjh]

The ring name doesn't give it away?

[Loss]

Does anyone know if the Scott Keith point about great promos having three things -- motive, intent and hype -- is something that came from him, or something he got from someone else? If he did come up with it himself, it's probably the sharpest thing he ever said, but I was curious.

[NintendoLogic]

He's referred to it as the Netcop Formula in the past, so if he didn't come up with it, that didn't stop him from taking credit for it.

[PeteF3]

I remember that from an old RSPW post by Keith, so I think it may be genuinely his.

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:02:09 MST

From: Scott Keith

Newsgroups: rec.sport.pro-wrestling.moderated

Subject: Why Scott Steiner is a [lousy] interview --

A quasi-essay

 

Okay, there seems to be a few people on here who don't seem to

understand why everyone constantly bitches about WCW's

interviews recently, so here's a Wrestling 101 course for you:

The Interview.

 

The purpose of the interview is to establish the character and

then (and more importantly) sell the match. WCW interviews have

tons of the former and noneof the latter.

 

Specifically, Jim Cornette once said that every interview can be

defined by three distinct parts:

1) Motivation

2) Intention

3) Hype.

Those are my words, not his. He tends to be more verbal about

it.

 

1) Motivation.

Why is the person being interviewed doing the interview?

Well, in the case of Nitro, it's usually to waste time, but in

the more classic sense, they're generally upset at someone else.

Now, if you assume that for every show there's at least 10% of

the audience who haven't seen an episode before, then it becomes

important to summarize what the issue at hand is, IN NO MORE

THAN TWO SENTENCES. This is really important because anything

more than that and the interview will lose all coherence right

off the bat as the wrestler goes off onto multiple tangents. Some

like Arn Anderson, Ric Flair, and Steve Austin can go longer, but

most cannot.

Okay, for example, Chris Jericho has cheated and screwed DDP

out of the US title at some point in the future. DDP is upset

about that, so he comes out and opens his interview by saying

"Chris 'Scumheart' Jericho, last week you stole my US title."

(This is very basic, yes, but bear with me.) Traditionally the

announcer (Mean Gene et al) have opened the interview by saying

something like "DDP, last week you were robbed by Chris Jericho!",

thus allowing the interviewee to go off however they want from

that. But it should be short and to the point and should clearly

establish that one person is Good and one person is Bad.

 

2) Intent.

What does the person in question intend to do about the

injustice? This is where creativity tends to come into play, as

the interviewee is free to call his opponent all sorts of names

and let his imagination run wild. For now, we'll stay bare-bones

and go with the prime Steve Austin intent: "I'm gonna whoop your

ass."

Doubt the effectiveness of the "intent" portion of the

interview? Ask any casual fan before a Steve Austin match what

Austin is going to do to his opponent and 99 times out of 100

he'll answer "Austin's gonna kick his ass!" Why? Because Austin

has clearly established his intent in countless interviews. You

know WHY he's [mad] and you know WHAT he'll do when he's [mad],

the only question remaining is WHEN ...

 

3) Hype.

The most important. The best interview is meaningless if it

doesn't build to a match. A 10 minute soliloquy is wasted if it's

not finished by saying "I'll see you at the pay-per-view!" or

something similar. The entire point of wrestling is to sell

tickets, and that's where the interview comes in. The motivation

creates interest in the characters, the intent creates interest

in the resolution, and the hype tells the people where to buy the

tickets to see it.

 

And that is why Scott Steiner (and countless others today)

are such a lousy interview. Steiner spends 20 minutes on the

motivation (Big Poppa Pump is your hookup, nWo 4 life, etc) but

never declares intent or challenges an opponent. Chris Jericho

spends 10 minutes on intent (Goldberg 0, Jericho 4, etc.) but he

has no angles, and thus no motivation, and thus no reason for the

fans to care. As well, he is unable to actually challenge

Goldberg, so there's no hype and no payoff. Thus, Jericho

(post-TV title) is a pointless interview, sad but true.

Ditto for the WWF: Val Venis is loads of motivation (I'm

screwing your wife, what are you gonna do about it?) but no

intent (we never really know WHY he'd bother fighting them) and

rarely does Venis challenge anyone himself ... he's a very

reactionary character.

On the other hand, there are currently some wrestlers who

employ the basic skills terrifically (most of them from the "old

school"):

 

Goldust -- Motivation (You destroyed my family), Intent

(You will never forget the name of Goldust), Hype (Meet me

at Breakdown)

 

Raven -- Motivation (I hate myself), Intent (I'm taking it

out on you), Hype (If you can beat this Flock member...)

 

DDP -- Motivation (Bret Hitscum Hart stole my US title),

Intent (You will feel the BANG!), Hype (I'm jacked for

World War III).

 

This is not to say that the "bad" interviews listed above

are bad interviews in general, they just don't utilize the basic

interview form enough to be a well-rounded interview. And the

reverse holds for the "good" interviews listed above -- DDP

*only* uses the basic interview skills, for instance, which is

technically sound but gets tedious very quickly.

Anyway, just something to think about the next time an nWo

C-Team member gets 14 minutes to ramble on about whatever on

Nitro next week. You can make youself sound smart by saying

"Well, he hardly declared his intent at all, and the hype was all

wrong!"

Well, maybe not.

 

Scott Keith, moderator rec.sport.pro-wrestling.moderated

and all-knowing keeper of the Pro Wrestling FAQ.

[El-P]

So, the sharpest thing he ever said was actually Cornette's.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

So, the sharpest thing he ever said was actually Cornette's.

I was really worried that everyone was going to mock Keith's essay here (plagiarized by Cornette) because Keith's book had me cite those three components as ingredients to cutting effective promos, and some of my wrestling friends mocked those key points. Well, if Cornette said so. . .

[Loss]

Regardless of who said it, it's a great point. If Scott made it up himself, I was ready to give him credit for it. Sounds like another thing Jim Cornette got right. Remember, Cornette talks an amazing game.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Regardless of who said it, it's a great point. If Scott made it up himself, I was ready to give him credit for it. Sounds like another thing Jim Cornette got right. Remember, Cornette talks an amazing game.

Of course, though Cornette makes the tactic of appealing to authority very effective in a debate with someone who isn't a mark but isn't a scholar either, like most wrestlers.