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

[kjh]

The Saturn thing is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard him push (I mean, it's not like it was before his time, he hasn't written a Benoit book or that the era hasn't been covered to death) and makes me wonder if we should be looking at him less as a confident dumb guy with a weird memory and more as someone with some sort of pathological personality disorder.

I've long wondered about Keith's psychology. He's some guy who likes to say strange, counterintuitive tidbits with the seeming goal being to make himself seem like the insider who has all the information. Most of his past works are obviously sensationalistic by nature, and he writes history with the intent of putting himself over more than constructing narratives that are supported by both facts and critical analysis. Honestly, he reminds me of those carny barker trolls who used to frequent wrestling figure websites by claiming his inside source within Jakks has given him a list of the next few sets of figures, creating an impressive but obviously bs list in the process. Over time, those people were banned or not trusted, but it got them over for that minute I suppose.

 

IIRC, Keith wrote a book called "The Death of the WWE". If he did, I wonder how he justified that title given that the company was still making ginormous amounts of money that WCW could only dream of.

I think he's someone who has some low level sources and he takes their word as gospel, rather than, as you say, only believing the stories that are backed up by further evidence.

[jdw]

That Backlund-Larry-Bruno thing on the prior page is a riot.

 

John

[goodhelmet]

The Saturn thing is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard him push (I mean, it's not like it was before his time, he hasn't written a Benoit book or that the era hasn't been covered to death) and makes me wonder if we should be looking at him less as a confident dumb guy with a weird memory and more as someone with some sort of pathological personality disorder.

I've long wondered about Keith's psychology. He's some guy who likes to say strange, counterintuitive tidbits with the seeming goal being to make himself seem like the insider who has all the information. Most of his past works are obviously sensationalistic by nature, and he writes history with the intent of putting himself over more than constructing narratives that are supported by both facts and critical analysis. Honestly, he reminds me of those carny barker trolls who used to frequent wrestling figure websites by claiming his inside source within Jakks has given him a list of the next few sets of figures, creating an impressive but obviously bs list in the process. Over time, those people were banned or not trusted, but it got them over for that minute I suppose.

 

IIRC, Keith wrote a book called "The Death of the WWE". If he did, I wonder how he justified that title given that the company was still making ginormous amounts of money that WCW could only dream of.

I think he's someone who has some low level sources and he takes their word as gospel, rather than, as you say, only believing the stories that are backed up by further evidence.

 

I don't think he even has low level sources.

[MikeCampbell]

That Backlund-Larry-Bruno thing on the prior page is a riot.

John

Even more so when Larry himself has said that Vince Sr. wasn't interested in putting the belt on him.

[kjh]

The Saturn thing is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard him push (I mean, it's not like it was before his time, he hasn't written a Benoit book or that the era hasn't been covered to death) and makes me wonder if we should be looking at him less as a confident dumb guy with a weird memory and more as someone with some sort of pathological personality disorder.

I've long wondered about Keith's psychology. He's some guy who likes to say strange, counterintuitive tidbits with the seeming goal being to make himself seem like the insider who has all the information. Most of his past works are obviously sensationalistic by nature, and he writes history with the intent of putting himself over more than constructing narratives that are supported by both facts and critical analysis. Honestly, he reminds me of those carny barker trolls who used to frequent wrestling figure websites by claiming his inside source within Jakks has given him a list of the next few sets of figures, creating an impressive but obviously bs list in the process. Over time, those people were banned or not trusted, but it got them over for that minute I suppose.

 

IIRC, Keith wrote a book called "The Death of the WWE". If he did, I wonder how he justified that title given that the company was still making ginormous amounts of money that WCW could only dream of.

I think he's someone who has some low level sources and he takes their word as gospel, rather than, as you say, only believing the stories that are backed up by further evidence.

 

I don't think he even has low level sources.

Seth Mates, who was on the WWE creative team about ten years ago was quoted on the front page of one of his book's saying: "Scott gets it dead-on".

[Guest Nell Santucci]

The Saturn thing is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard him push (I mean, it's not like it was before his time, he hasn't written a Benoit book or that the era hasn't been covered to death) and makes me wonder if we should be looking at him less as a confident dumb guy with a weird memory and more as someone with some sort of pathological personality disorder.

I've long wondered about Keith's psychology. He's some guy who likes to say strange, counterintuitive tidbits with the seeming goal being to make himself seem like the insider who has all the information. Most of his past works are obviously sensationalistic by nature, and he writes history with the intent of putting himself over more than constructing narratives that are supported by both facts and critical analysis. Honestly, he reminds me of those carny barker trolls who used to frequent wrestling figure websites by claiming his inside source within Jakks has given him a list of the next few sets of figures, creating an impressive but obviously bs list in the process. Over time, those people were banned or not trusted, but it got them over for that minute I suppose.

 

IIRC, Keith wrote a book called "The Death of the WWE". If he did, I wonder how he justified that title given that the company was still making ginormous amounts of money that WCW could only dream of.

I think he's someone who has some low level sources and he takes their word as gospel, rather than, as you say, only believing the stories that are backed up by further evidence.

 

I don't think he even has low level sources.

Seth Mates, who was on the WWE creative team about ten years ago was quoted on the front page of one of his book's saying: "Scott gets it dead-on".

 

Seth was probably talking about Scott Steiner's promo abilities.

[blueminister]

The Saturn thing is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard him push (I mean, it's not like it was before his time, he hasn't written a Benoit book or that the era hasn't been covered to death) and makes me wonder if we should be looking at him less as a confident dumb guy with a weird memory and more as someone with some sort of pathological personality disorder.

I've long wondered about Keith's psychology. He's some guy who likes to say strange, counterintuitive tidbits with the seeming goal being to make himself seem like the insider who has all the information. Most of his past works are obviously sensationalistic by nature, and he writes history with the intent of putting himself over more than constructing narratives that are supported by both facts and critical analysis. Honestly, he reminds me of those carny barker trolls who used to frequent wrestling figure websites by claiming his inside source within Jakks has given him a list of the next few sets of figures, creating an impressive but obviously bs list in the process. Over time, those people were banned or not trusted, but it got them over for that minute I suppose.

 

IIRC, Keith wrote a book called "The Death of the WWE". If he did, I wonder how he justified that title given that the company was still making ginormous amounts of money that WCW could only dream of.

I think he's someone who has some low level sources and he takes their word as gospel, rather than, as you say, only believing the stories that are backed up by further evidence.

 

I don't think he even has low level sources.

Seth Mates, who was on the WWE creative team about ten years ago was quoted on the front page of one of his book's saying: "Scott gets it dead-on".

 

Ahahahaha so Michael Cole's erstwhile young boy has given his stamp of approval, nice.

[artDDP]

Wasn't the Zbyszko-McMahon issue over money and one of the two sides (or both) has held a grudge for over thirty years?

 

I used to read Scott religiously back in high school and took pretty much everything he said seriously...before I knew better.

[MikeCampbell]

This is the story according to Larry on the new KC DVD, so take it for whatever it's worth.

 

Larry felt like he was getting screwed over, because he was the top heel and drawing the crowds, but Backlund was getting the credit and the compensation for it. Larry was scheduled to face Bob for the title and made a pitch to Vince, sr. for the belt, saying it'd make him that much more hated. Vince wasn't interested and after some back and fourth Vince told him "Let's just forget it." Larry no-showed a few spot shows, claiming Vince fired him (knowing Vince was on vacation and he couldn't be reached). When the office finally reached Vince, he came back and had another meeting with Larry. They agreed for Larry to go back to work and go with the flow, and in return Vince would run Larry/Bruno at Shea, with a big payday for Larry.

 

After Shea, they had no more interest in him, so he was in the mid card. Anytime they'd want him to lay down, he'd refuse because Bruno never pinned him, so if Putski, Morales, etc. did, the it'd just make Bruno look bad. The frustration eventually boiled over and Larry left in early '81.

[jdw]

I think we talked about this earlier: Larry is full of shit. Looking at the major arena cards that Larry worked the rest of the year after Shea:

 

Flushing, NY - Shea Stadium - August 9, 1980

Bruno Sammartino defeated Larry Zbyszko in a steel cage match at 13:59

 

Landover, MD - Capital Centre - August 16, 1980

Bruno Sammartino defeated Larry Zbyszko in a lumberjack match

 

This was the main event. Backlund working Boston Garden the same day. Bruno-Larry were wrapping up their run in that city. They also had some other matches in smaller towns after Shea.

 

Philadelphia, PA - Spectrum - August 23, 1980

Larry Zbyszko pinned Ivan Putski at 10:48 in a Texas Death Match

WWF IC Champion Ken Patera pinned Gorilla Monsoon at 11:54

 

No Backlund - in Japan

 

Baltimore, MD - Civic Center - August 30, 1980

WWF World Champion Bob Backlund pinned Larry Zbyszko at 19:28

 

Oooops... that sucks.

 

Boston, MA - Boston Garden - September 6, 1980

Pedro Morales defeated Larry Zbyszko via count-out

WWF World Champion Bob Backlund defeated WWF IC Champion Ken Patera in a lumberjack match

 

Larry had already run his course with Bruno in Boston (4/5, 5/10, 6/14).

 

 

New York City, NY - Madison Square Garden - September 22, 1980

Larry Zbyszko defeated Tony Garea via disqualification at 12:15

WWF World Champion Bob Backlund defeated NWA World Champion Harley Race via disqualification at 35:14

 

Larry faced Bob on the 6/16 MSG card, and of course had the matches with Bruno in MSG in March and April.

 

Baltimore, MD - Civic Center - September 27, 1980

Larry Zbyszko defeated Pat Patterson via count-out at 13:16

WWF World Champion Bob Backlund pinned the Hangman at 17:28

 

Baltimore match with Bruno on 6/7 and matches with Bob on 7/19 and the above 8/30 where Bob pinned him after Shea.

 

Boston, MA - Boston Garden - October 4, 1980

Larry Zbyszko defeated Tony Garea

WWF World Champion Bob Backlund defeated the Hangman

 

Pittsburgh, PA - Civic Arena - October 10, 1980

WWF World Champion Bob Backlund pinned Larry Zbyszko at 14:59

 

Oooops... that also sucks.

 

Pittsburgh matches with Bruno on 3/14, 5/2 and 6/13 (cage blow off). Match with Larry later in the year, possibly a second because Graham only lists one match for the 9/18 card and Bob and Larry are not working the other card that day.

 

Philadelphia, PA - Spectrum - October 11, 1980 (12,183)

Larry Zbyszko defeated WWF World Champion Bob Backlund via count-out at 20:13

 

Wait... Larry main eventing the Spectrum against Bob. First of two matches in Philly between the two. Larry-Bruno in Philly was back on 3/1 and 4/12.

 

New York City, NY - Madison Square Garden - October 20, 1980

Sgt. Slaughter defeated WWF World Champion Bob Backlund via disqualification at 16:33

Tony Garea defeated Larry Zbyszko via disqualification at 4:58

 

Anyone get the feeling that Larry was only looking at MSG results when making up this myth?

 

Philadelphia, PA - Spectrum - November 8, 1980

WWF World Champion Bob Backlund defeated Larry Zbyszko via disqualfiication

 

Yep...

 

Pittsburgh, PA - Civic Arena - November 14, 1980

Tony Garea defeated Larry Zbyszko via disqualification

Bruno Sammartino defeated WWF IC Champion Ken Patera via disqualification

WWF World Champion Bob Backlund defeated Sgt. Slaughter via count-out

 

Great double main event there.

 

Landover, MD - Capital Centre - November 22, 1980 (matinee)

WWF World Champion Bob Backlund defeated Larry Zbyszko via disqualification

 

Yep...

 

New York City, NY - Madison Square Garden - December 8, 1980 (20,011)

Larry Zbyszko defeated Dominic DeNucci via count-out at 12:42

Pedro Morales defeated WWF IC Champion Ken Patera to win the title at 18:51

Bruno Sammartino defeated Sgt. Slaughter via count-out at 18:38

 

No Bob - off in Japan for NJPW's Tag League.

 

Pittsburgh, PA - Civic Arena - December 12, 1980

Dominic DeNucci defeated Larry Zbyszko via disqualification

Bruno Sammartino defeated Ken Patera

 

Bob was returning from Japan, stopping off in Los Angeles to work the Olympic that night.

 

Philadelphia, PA - Spectrum - December 13, 1980 (matinee) (7,742)

Tony Atlas fought Larry Zbyszko to a double disqualification at 11:14

Bruno Sammartino defeated Ken Patera

 

Bob was working Boston Garden against Slaughter that night.

 

 

So...

 

Larry's shoot tape is laughable. I think I mentioned something along those lines earlier as well. I don't think there's much truth at all in it. Larry's been lying about his WWF run for so long that he probably believes 80% of the lies, and fluffs himself on the other 20%.

 

I wouldn't even believe that there were money issues. Larry had his run. It drew massively against Bruno, and he would have gotten paid for it (though Bruno likely got paid even more). He had matches against Bob, some just one match series and some multi-match series. I think if you look at the order of the matches, you'll see why it was a catch-22 from the booking:

 

* Bruno-Larry was the push

* you couldn't "put Bob over Larry" in MSG before Shea

* after Shea, the value of Larry wasn't as great

 

He got blown off at Shea. People might want to hang their hat on "he didn't pin Larry at Shea", but everyone knows how WWWF/WWF blowoff cage matches worked in that era and well into the 80s: face won by going over the top or through the door, and kicked the heel's ass in the process. Watch Shea: Bruno kicked his ass before walking out. They may have gone back and forth during the match (less than one would think), but Bruno kicked his ass at the end and then walked out the door. It's how almost all of these ended. It's every bit as much of a loss as a pinfall, frankly even more so: cage was the biggest match in the WWF at the time, it was very rarely rolled out (as in about once a year), and you had a clear winner and loser.

 

After Shea, Larry simply wasn't going to be as red hot anymore in MSG. In addition, Shea was so freaking huge as far as coverage that it wasn't just a normal blow off: there would be fans in other cities that would pick up on it. He essentially was on the clock.

 

Lastly, this is the way things went in those days. Guys got Big Heel Pushes in the WWWF/WWF, ran their cycle, fell a bit down the card, and Left. One can easily look at the big pushes Valentine got in 1979 and 1981/82, then leaving back for Mid-Atlantic. Rare exceptions:

 

* Patterson

 

He was turned face. He also seemed to make friends with Vince or Jr. fairly fast, so that might have had something to do with it.

 

* Patera

 

He still had the IC belt. He had a post-Backlund run against the likes of Atlas, Patterson, Bruno, Gorilla and eventually Pedro, but was out of town shortly after losing the IC title to Pedro. The belt allowed him to slide down post-Backlund, but still have something for other faces in the company to chase.

 

Larry had none of that.

 

John

[MikeCampbell]

I think we talked about this earlier: Larry is full of shit.

It wasn't an in-depth and detailed as all of what you posted, but yes, we pretty much agreed that Larry was full of it. You pointed out the losses to Bruno, and the fact that he was protected better than most afterwards, but he was never pushed as a serious threat to Backlund.

[El-P]

Larry's shoot tape is laughable.

That's the big issue with shoot tapes, as the guys doing the interveiws don't to the least bit of research it seems, even the guy from KC. They just to hear stories and the hell with facts. I mean, when Nash says that the best fight he ever saw was Vader vs Orndorff when it happens a good 6 months before he even was in WCW, it's not that hard to point out that fact. Larry is fantastically full of shit, and the talking point about Backlund not drawing shit and being paranoid is ridiculous at this point.

[NintendoLogic]

Huh?

I'm not sure how much footage we have of Fliar between 74-81.

Flair dropped about 75% of his offense from when we first have complete footage in the 80s and 89.

He drops about 75% of what's left between 89-91. And just keeps on streamlining.

 

He goes from being a technical wrestler who when push comes to shove will rely on brawling and shortcuts, to a chicken shit brawler who when push comes to shove will rely on shortcuts, to a WWF style weak heel, to a guy who is all shortcuts and when push comes to shove has to rely on garbage.

Dropping stuff from one's repertoire while not adding anything new does not constitute reinventing oneself.

[tomk]

Dropping stuff from one's repertoire while not adding anything new does not constitute reinventing oneself.

Who reinvented themselves/evolved through addition?

 

I mean yes Terry Funk added a moonsault but when people talk about Terry Funk as a guy who reinvented himself they aren’t talking about the moonsault. They are talking about Terry Funk working lunatic brawler gimmick. You can see Chainsaw Charlie/ECW-Terry Funk in Funk’s 70s work. It isn’t the focus of his work but it’s there. He eliminated a bunch of other aspects of his game and concentrated on the nutthouse brawler.

 

Jushin Lyger is a guy who is constantly changing and reinventing himself. Post Brain surgery moved from a guy whose matches were focused around highflying offense to a guy more focused on power offense, and then moved to guy more focused on matt work and striking. It’s not that Lyger added shotei’s and a Thesz press. He eliminated stuff and moved the section of the match that he was most focused on.

 

Mutoh always did a bunch of listless matwork. His reinvention was eliminating stuff and changing the focus of the match.

 

I guess there was no hints of Yasuda’s almost vaudeville chicken shit MMA guy with gambling debts shtick in early Yasuda. That was all added later. But no one talks about Yasuda’s ability to reinvent himself. And anyone who said “Look at how Yasuda is able to add things to reinvent himself. Why can Yasuda do that and not Flair.” Would be laughed at.

[Ditch]

The ultimate transformation along those lines has to be Kobashi, who had a vast moveset from '93-'98 and almost none by '06.

[MJH]

Even by then, though, with only the chop, how many variations did the guy do? There's some six man I remember seeing where he does almost an Orange Crush with a chop thrown in... silly, but the guy was clearly still trying to do a lot of stuff and have as big an offence as he was physically capable, his "attitude" hadn't changed on that.

[thebrainfollower]

For what it's worth in a recent blog entry Scott admits Austin winning the title at Final Four was total BS on his part.

[Bix]

For what it's worth in a recent blog entry Scott admits Austin winning the title at Final Four was total BS on his part.

For posterity:

 

http://www.rspwfaq.net/2013/02/bret-questions-for-blog.html

 

1. Why did Bret win the title at "Final Four" in early 1997 only to lose it the next night to Sid? Seemed silly to have a decorated champion and still in his prime Bret serve as a short term transitional champ a-la Iron Sheik in 1984 or Bob Backlund in 1994. I heard that maybe SCSA was booked to win Final Four but plans had to change mid-match when he got legit injured. If that is true, what were the plans for SCSA's first planned reign?

 

1. Untrue. That was just one of those rumors at the time that I was as guilty of spreading as anyone. Bret winning the belt was the plan all along.

[artDDP]

For what it's worth in a recent blog entry Scott admits Austin winning the title at Final Four was total BS on his part.

For posterity:

 

http://www.rspwfaq.net/2013/02/bret-questions-for-blog.html

 

1. Why did Bret win the title at "Final Four" in early 1997 only to lose it the next night to Sid? Seemed silly to have a decorated champion and still in his prime Bret serve as a short term transitional champ a-la Iron Sheik in 1984 or Bob Backlund in 1994. I heard that maybe SCSA was booked to win Final Four but plans had to change mid-match when he got legit injured. If that is true, what were the plans for SCSA's first planned reign?

 

1. Untrue. That was just one of those rumors at the time that I was as guilty of spreading as anyone. Bret winning the belt was the plan all along.

I never understood what was so hard for Scott to understand. Bret was supposed to win the title and go to Mania to face Shawn. When Shawn couldn't work Mania they still had Bret win and then lose to Sid to set up the last-minute 'Taker-Sid main event.

[artDDP]

For what it's worth in a recent blog entry Scott admits Austin winning the title at Final Four was total BS on his part.

For posterity:

 

http://www.rspwfaq.net/2013/02/bret-questions-for-blog.html

 

1. Why did Bret win the title at "Final Four" in early 1997 only to lose it the next night to Sid? Seemed silly to have a decorated champion and still in his prime Bret serve as a short term transitional champ a-la Iron Sheik in 1984 or Bob Backlund in 1994. I heard that maybe SCSA was booked to win Final Four but plans had to change mid-match when he got legit injured. If that is true, what were the plans for SCSA's first planned reign?

 

1. Untrue. That was just one of those rumors at the time that I was as guilty of spreading as anyone. Bret winning the belt was the plan all along.

I never understood what was so hard for Scott to understand. Bret was supposed to win the title and go to Mania to face Shawn. When Shawn couldn't work Mania they still had Bret win and then lose to Sid to set up the last-minute 'Taker-Sid main event.

[Slasher]

For what it's worth in a recent blog entry Scott admits Austin winning the title at Final Four was total BS on his part.

For posterity:

 

http://www.rspwfaq.net/2013/02/bret-questions-for-blog.html

 

1. Why did Bret win the title at "Final Four" in early 1997 only to lose it the next night to Sid? Seemed silly to have a decorated champion and still in his prime Bret serve as a short term transitional champ a-la Iron Sheik in 1984 or Bob Backlund in 1994. I heard that maybe SCSA was booked to win Final Four but plans had to change mid-match when he got legit injured. If that is true, what were the plans for SCSA's first planned reign?

 

1. Untrue. That was just one of those rumors at the time that I was as guilty of spreading as anyone. Bret winning the belt was the plan all along.

I never understood what was so hard for Scott to understand. Bret was supposed to win the title and go to Mania to face Shawn. When Shawn couldn't work Mania they still had Bret win and then lose to Sid to set up the last-minute 'Taker-Sid main event.

 

To be fair, I never understood the logic of that. Why put the belt on Bret if the title match becomes Taker/Sid? Why not have Sid take Taker out of the Final Four PPV and win the strap himself, setting up the Taker challenge? You still get to do the Hart/Austin match in that scenario. Putting the belt on Bret just to yank it off as quickly reeks of a "We're going to fuck you around" mentality with WWF towards Bret.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Putting the belt on Bret just to yank it off as quickly reeks of a "We're going to fuck you around" mentality with WWF towards Bret.

Nah, it gave Bret another reason to turn. It worked because it helped with the Hero in Canada/ Heel in America deal they were working towards. If you were a staunch Bret fan, you were mad he was getting cheated and screwed and if you were a fan ready to boo him, it added to the "He's a crybaby" deal. There was a lot of shit that added together caused Bret to finally explode and go heel, this was one and I just think it all worked so well.

[artDDP]

My recollection of the WWF at the time was that booking was in absolute chaos because of injuries. Wasn't the Sid-Taker match decided just a few weeks before WrestleMania? It's possible they just didn't know what to do until the Raw after the Final Four PPV so Bret won the title.

 

I'm surprised Bret was willing to be a one-day transitional champion since he had such a hard time being one between Survivor Series 2005 and WrestleMania XII.

[MJH]

He was probably well aware that his match/feud with Austin would be far more memorable than Taker/Sid and in his mind the real main event...

[Loss]

He was also fresh off of signing a 20-year deal with the company. Until Shawn's heel turn, whatever Bret was doing *was* the main event, belt or not. There may have been other champions, but Bret was clearly The Man in the WWF by this point.