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

[MikeCampbell]

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'm impressed, it only took him ten years to admit that. Meltzter shot that down in like 2002, and it still wound up in one of his books, even after it was pointed out to him.

[blueminister]

LOL @ "was guilty of spreading it as anyone."

 

Hitler: "Now, we can argue all day about who incited the Holocaust, but..."

[cm funk]

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.

Are you sure about that? It was Shawn "losing his smile" that necessitated the Final Four match being for the title in the first place. It was originally going to be for the Mania title shot coming off the disputed Rumble finish.

 

My understanding is that Shawn was to hold the belt into Mania, Bret would win the 4 way, and Shawn would drop the belt to Bret. When Shawn walked out or faked a knee injury or was legit injured depending what you want to believe, that's when they went in the direction they did.

 

I was always curious what they would have done with Austin at WM if he wasn't working Bret. My guess is he would have done something with Pillman who was due to return around that time, though it probably would have been a backstage brawl rather than a proper match.

[Corona]

You know what Scott's good for? If you're planning on watching a US PPV, and are interested in getting an idea of the show in advance. Scott will almost certainly have "reviewed" it at some point, so you can find out what the match lengths and interesting spots that you may have skimmed over are.

 

 

He's out of his depth on anything other than vaguely describing what's on screen, though. You can tell when he's talking absolute shit, because he'll use one of: "basically", "pretty much" or "single-handedly". These are such tells that he's not really confident in what he's saying, or that he's over-simplifying for whatever reason. "For whatever reason" usually means he hasn't bothered researching or doesn't understand, btw.

[artDDP]

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.

Are you sure about that? It was Shawn "losing his smile" that necessitated the Final Four match being for the title in the first place. It was originally going to be for the Mania title shot coming off the disputed Rumble finish.

 

My understanding is that Shawn was to hold the belt into Mania, Bret would win the 4 way, and Shawn would drop the belt to Bret. When Shawn walked out or faked a knee injury or was legit injured depending what you want to believe, that's when they went in the direction they did.

 

I was always curious what they would have done with Austin at WM if he wasn't working Bret. My guess is he would have done something with Pillman who was due to return around that time, though it probably would have been a backstage brawl rather than a proper match.

 

Sorry, I think I meant to say "Bret was supposed to win the match". Shawn was supposed to hold onto the title.

[Al]

You know what Scott's good for? If you're planning on watching a US PPV, and are interested in getting an idea of the show in advance. Scott will almost certainly have "reviewed" it at some point, so you can find out what the match lengths and interesting spots that you may have skimmed over are.

 

 

He's out of his depth on anything other than vaguely describing what's on screen, though. You can tell when he's talking absolute shit, because he'll use one of: "basically", "pretty much" or "single-handedly". These are such tells that he's not really confident in what he's saying, or that he's over-simplifying for whatever reason. "For whatever reason" usually means he hasn't bothered researching or doesn't understand, btw.

Scott's success in a nutshell is right place and right time, he produced a ton of material and it was easy to find. To this day it's probably easier to find a Keith review of a show than any other.

[tigerpride]

Before we begin, Cactusbix wanted me to point out how weird it was that people would actually buy me stuff just because I tell them to. What can I say? I am the opiate of the masses. (Mr. Bixenspan is no longer on speaking terms with me.)

 

:-(

[Bix]

Before we begin, Cactusbix wanted me to point out how weird it was that people would actually buy me stuff just because I tell them to. What can I say? I am the opiate of the masses. (Mr. Bixenspan is no longer on speaking terms with me.)

 

:-(

Didn't see this until now. He also added this in the comments when somebody linked this thread:

 

I have no idea what I did to so personally offend him, either, because he basically just stopped talking to me around 2004 and now slags me all over the place.

I dunno if I should email him or ignore him or what, but I remember it basically being what he said, only from my side.

 

And for the record, the reason I started this thread was that I found the Elizabeth stuff in that book legitimately offensive, on top of the continued "SUNNY IS A CRACKWHORE!" type of stuff. I don't pretend I never wrote anything like the latter (and there's one person in particular I obviously feel like an ass for writing similarly juvenile stuff about), but I regret it deeply. And even then, I don't think I ever took it further than "LOL amusing anecdote" type message board posts, while Scott was a writer with a following who knew he was seen as an authority.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Before we begin, Cactusbix wanted me to point out how weird it was that people would actually buy me stuff just because I tell them to. What can I say? I am the opiate of the masses. (Mr. Bixenspan is no longer on speaking terms with me.)

 

:-(

Didn't see this until now. He also added this in the comments when somebody linked this thread:

 

I have no idea what I did to so personally offend him, either, because he basically just stopped talking to me around 2004 and now slags me all over the place.

I dunno if I should email him or ignore him or what, but I remember it basically being what he said, only from my side.

 

And for the record, the reason I started this thread was that I found the Elizabeth stuff in that book legitimately offensive, on top of the continued "SUNNY IS A CRACKWHORE!" type of stuff. I don't pretend I never wrote anything like the latter (and there's one person in particular I obviously feel like an ass for writing similarly juvenile stuff about), but I regret it deeply. And even then, I don't think I ever took it further than "LOL amusing anecdote" type message board posts, while Scott was a writer with a following who knew he was seen as an authority.

 

What did he write about Elizabeth? And are you talking about me? I ignored the replies largely because it wasn't worth quarreling over imo. The fact is that I can't think of a more helpless, fucked up character than her, and it should be obvious to everyone that she needs serious psychiatric help. What's worse about Sunny is she's not a stupid person. But her marks (not you or anyone in particular) fawning over her only enablers what is a drawn out public suicide.

[jdw]

If it wasn't obvious, he was talking about SKeith.

[Tim Cooke]

Shocker - Scott had never seen Joe/Necro until today and thought it stunk.

[Bix]

To be fair I can see why someone wouldn't enjoy that match.

[Statfreak101]

I had forgotten just what an idiot SKeith is.

 

This thing needs a multi-part review akin to that famous one on Bret Hart's book (Bix had linked to it a while back).

 

 

John

Bix, or anyone have a link to the review on Hart's book?

 

I've read it a few times, and love it more each time. Would love to read a review on it of this caliber. Thanks!

[Hollinger.]

are you Scott Keith? You talk like Scott Keith. Scott Keith.

[evilclown]

I had forgotten just what an idiot SKeith is.

 

This thing needs a multi-part review akin to that famous one on Bret Hart's book (Bix had linked to it a while back).

 

 

John

Bix, or anyone have a link to the review on Hart's book?

 

I've read it a few times, and love it more each time. Would love to read a review on it of this caliber. Thanks!

 

I just wanted to mention, again, that the hilarious Bret Hart review was by my friend Kendall Shields. Less famously, he is also the co-author of The MMA Encyclopedia.

[Hollinger.]

and basically everything out of his mouth is an wonderful as that review.

[Bix]

Thread from when I first posted the PDF of Kendall's posts here with download link within is http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?showtopic=6549

[jdw]

"Great shit."

-jdw

[khawk20]

are you Scott Keith? You talk like Scott Keith. Scott Keith.

Reminds me of a dog with a harelip.

[Migs]

Relevant new post from Scott:

 

http://www.rspwfaq.net/2013/10/the-only-be...at-matters.html

 

Question:

the only Benoit question that matters

Scott,

I've been reading your work for more than 15 years - frightening. I wanted to ask you something that might be a little touchy feely for your tastes, but I'm hoping you'll give it a thought. Though I'm a fan of your work and I wouldn't ask you to change your style for anything, I can say that you will hide behind your intellect and sarcasm when a question has the chance to hit a nerve. I'm asking you to just be honest.

One of the reasons I gravitated toward your work back in the late 90s was your admiration for my favorite wrestler, Chris Benoit. There were a lot of guys on the internet who championed his ringwork, but you were a better writer, and a lot of the times your rants would seem to crystalize bits of thoughts from my head into something coherent in print about Benoit. You saw him for what he was in his strengths and weaknesses - a guy who, in my opinion, is the greatest ring worker to wrestle in North America (Shawn is an amazing entertainer, but you believed Benoit was kicking the crap out of people and getting the crap kicked out of him) but also rather out of his element in the modern era of angles, mic work, and being an accessible personality to put on t-shirts and the like. No, I'm not a delusional fan ala "Stan" of Eminem's song, but as he went along his career, I oddly felt like I'd experience his journey along with you, from all of the brilliance amidst the shit in WCW through surreal highs (the IC title win at Wrestlemania 2000, for example) through unbelievable matches (Rumble 2003 vs Angle) through periods where he was just kind of there (most of 2003 after the Rumble) through the pinnacle at WM 20 (which I consider a perfect match, even from an objective standpoint) and the reasonable success he had from 2005 on.

 

So now we're six years removed from the tragedy, and I'll still watch Benoit matches, enjoying them more than most any other match I'll watch and wondering the whole time if I was always watching a monster in plain sight. Whatever the horrible chain of events that led to Benoit becoming a man who murdered his family, I'm still left just haunted by the thing. It goes beyond the "rational" stance that you shouldn't have heroes because they can only let you down. Fuck heroes, I just want to be able to look at a guy whose work I like and know he isn't the devil incarnate. I think about how when I'm hanging out with my 10 year old nephew and we watch some wrestling on YouTube, the one wrestler I'd want to show him to show him how awesome wrestling can be is Benoit - and yet I haven't, for several reasons. I don't need you to solve my dilemma over it, because I am (basically) an adult and can deal. But I want to know, aside from humor skirting bad taste (not a judgment, I'd think you'd agree), you deal with that - the guy you admired as a worker coming to an end like that. How DID you feel when you heard the news? I'd be grateful to hear your take.

Jesse

 

Answer:

 

I don't particularly seek out Benoit matches anymore, but I'm fine watching them now. I think there's a disconnect where I don't really associate the person who did the horrible things with the person in the ring, mostly because everything suggests that he really did become a different person in those last days. That being said, I don't really enjoy watching his matches anymore either, and I couldn't recommend using him as an example of in-ring greatness at this point. Frankly I don't know if anyone ever came to terms 100% with what he did, because it was just so hugely monstrous.

[Cox]

Though I'm a fan of your work and I wouldn't ask you to change your style for anything, I can say that you will hide behind your intellect and sarcasm when a question has the chance to hit a nerve.

If Scott Keith hid behind his intellect, he'd be found pretty quickly.

[tigerpride]

What is relevant about that post?

[Bix]

What is relevant about that post?

The thread was originally about his Benoit book.

[tigerpride]

Yea, but he's been consistent about Benoit for a while. Nothing earth shattering

[Bix]

I know I shouldn't be but for some reason I'm frustrated by him not knowing who Black Gordman and Great Goliath are: http://www.rspwfaq.net/2013/10/the-coliseu...t=1382425427012