DR Ackermann Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 Oh I get it...awkward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruiserBrody Posted March 29, 2014 Report Share Posted March 29, 2014 That's not...terrible. I mean, I think in his head it's much bigger than it was in reality, when you consider how big Bret was in places like Germany, it's far from one of the dumbest things he's said. I took it more like Bret being a "mainstream" star akin to Hogan and Cena. Being over in front of wrestling crowds doesn't count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 Stumbled across this quote from Keith today, taken from his Halloween Havoc '90 review, Lex was getting mighty lazy by this point. I'm not sure why WCW bothered with the Hansen push, because he was clearly waaaay over the hill by this point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but October of '90 is right in the middle of Luger's best period ever as a worker, right? It's not until late '91-92 when he starts to dovetail off, if I recall correctly. And the Hansen comment is blatant misinformation from someone who barely watches Japan, as if I recall Hansen was still damn great until around the end of '93. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 Hansen was great until the day he took off his boots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corona Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 Brock Lesnar v. Undertaker Undertaker is nice enough to line up a series of caskets the Streak victims helpfully numbered, although the video package and panning shot both omit the 21st victim. Brock quickly slugs UT down and clotheslines him to the floor, but Taker goes to work on the arm. Guillotine legdrop on the apron and Snake Eyes, but Brock escapes the chokeslam and Taker misses a blind charge. Brock takes over and chokes away in the corner, and works on the leg. There’s almost no reaction from the crowd for any of this. Taker comes back with the big boot for two and the chokeslam for two. Brock with the F5 for two. Brock slowly walks around over Taker before getting caught with the gogoplata, but he powers out of it. Another try, but Brock powers out again. And now it’s Brock turn, as he grabs the kimura, but Taker reverses out. We go Old School, but Brock counters with the F5 for two. Brock with a pair of weak-ass german suplexes, as Taker can’t really go up for them any more. Brock pounds him in the corner, but makes the classic error of standing on the turnbuckles and gets powerbombed. Tombstone gets two. There was about a foot of space between his head and the mat on that one. Another try is turned into an F5…and the streak is over at 25:50. WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK?!? Fans at ringside freak out and I can’t blame them. I think I can say without hyperbole that this was one of the worst booking decisions in the history of wrestling. This is a waste of the streak. Not to mention that the match sucked and Brock was booked like a chump leading up to this. **1/4 And then as Undertaker does his dramatic standing up, some guy in the front row yells “YOU SUCK” with perfect timing. There’s a good summation of the whole deal. I feel like this is going to dominate my inbox for the next two weeks. http://www.rspwfaq.net/2014/04/the-smark-rant-for-wwe-wrestlemania-30.html Ignoring the factual error (Punk's casket was clearly visible), you cannot describe anything as "one of the worst booking decisions in the history of wrestling" until it's had a chance to play out! Scott Keith in reactionary moron shocker. This also indicates one of the weaknesses with the star system and Scott's play-by-play-without-really-saying-anything approaches. Normally, the idea of watching a 25 minute **1/4 match would be ridiculous to me, surely a waste of time. But this is shaping up to be one of the most important matches ever (or not - we don't know yet, but it seems likely) and well worth half an hour of your time. It's like how the Taker / Foley HIAC is rated low by a lot of people, but damn, it's worth watching! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 I don't think you can compare it to King Of The Ring 1998. That was a genuinely shocking, incredible match, albeit not in the traditional sense. You can't take your eyes away from the spectacle, and loads of crazy shit happens. Lesnar/Taker was a genuinely dull, boring match, where pretty much nothing happens. The only thing of any interest about it is the finish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Jiz Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 Brock Lesnar v. Undertaker Undertaker is nice enough to line up a series of caskets the Streak victims helpfully numbered, although the video package and panning shot both omit the 21st victim. Brock quickly slugs UT down and clotheslines him to the floor, but Taker goes to work on the arm. Guillotine legdrop on the apron and Snake Eyes, but Brock escapes the chokeslam and Taker misses a blind charge. Brock takes over and chokes away in the corner, and works on the leg. There’s almost no reaction from the crowd for any of this. Taker comes back with the big boot for two and the chokeslam for two. Brock with the F5 for two. Brock slowly walks around over Taker before getting caught with the gogoplata, but he powers out of it. Another try, but Brock powers out again. And now it’s Brock turn, as he grabs the kimura, but Taker reverses out. We go Old School, but Brock counters with the F5 for two. Brock with a pair of weak-ass german suplexes, as Taker can’t really go up for them any more. Brock pounds him in the corner, but makes the classic error of standing on the turnbuckles and gets powerbombed. Tombstone gets two. There was about a foot of space between his head and the mat on that one. Another try is turned into an F5…and the streak is over at 25:50. WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK?!? Fans at ringside freak out and I can’t blame them. I think I can say without hyperbole that this was one of the worst booking decisions in the history of wrestling. This is a waste of the streak. Not to mention that the match sucked and Brock was booked like a chump leading up to this. **1/4 And then as Undertaker does his dramatic standing up, some guy in the front row yells “YOU SUCK” with perfect timing. There’s a good summation of the whole deal. I feel like this is going to dominate my inbox for the next two weeks. http://www.rspwfaq.net/2014/04/the-smark-rant-for-wwe-wrestlemania-30.html Ignoring the factual error (Punk's casket was clearly visible), you cannot describe anything as "one of the worst booking decisions in the history of wrestling" until it's had a chance to play out! Scott Keith in reactionary moron shocker. This also indicates one of the weaknesses with the star system and Scott's play-by-play-without-really-saying-anything approaches. Normally, the idea of watching a 25 minute **1/4 match would be ridiculous to me, surely a waste of time. But this is shaping up to be one of the most important matches ever (or not - we don't know yet, but it seems likely) and well worth half an hour of your time. It's like how the Taker / Foley HIAC is rated low by a lot of people, but damn, it's worth watching! Hyperbole like that is why I stick with PWO and WO. Even if WWE never does anything with this other than to give Lesnar heat, there is no way this would be anything close to "one of the worst booking decisions in the history of wrestling." Undertaker is old, and frankly, only Cena and Lesnar are the guys who would unseat him at the moment: Lesnar because he is a proven tuff guy, and Cena because, his following aside, he'd get some real heel heat if he did a screwjob finish. Bryan? Maybe, but he doesn't need that rub in a way and his name recognition isn't there yet. Last night, I talked with the bartender. "Lesnar beat Undertaker? Really?!?" - and he doesn't even like wrestling. Sub in Bryan, and he'd be like "Who's Bryan?" Point being is Keith's "analysis" is neither interesting, nor insightful, nor particularly critical since he's saying nothing at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 i took a cursory glance at his blog and a bunch of people in the comments seriously think taker called an audible in that match ahahahahahaha this is why im awfully glad my friend told me about this place Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 Why would anyone want to watch Taker v. Lesnar again except for the final few minutes? The match was boring, it sucked. I've watched the ending many times now, but have no interest in watching the match as a whole. I think Keith uses PBP as a crutch at this point, like most people do. It fills up the page and makes people think you're saying something when you're not saying anything at all. He might have admitted this, I know every time he tries a new format, people rebel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradhindsight Posted April 8, 2014 Report Share Posted April 8, 2014 Stumbled across this quote from Keith today, taken from his Halloween Havoc '90 review, Lex was getting mighty lazy by this point. I'm not sure why WCW bothered with the Hansen push, because he was clearly waaaay over the hill by this point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but October of '90 is right in the middle of Luger's best period ever as a worker, right? It's not until late '91-92 when he starts to dovetail off, if I recall correctly. And the Hansen comment is blatant misinformation from someone who barely watches Japan, as if I recall Hansen was still damn great until around the end of '93. Pretty much the stereotypical view of Luger and WCW back when it was first written. You are not wrong here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 It’s Jerry Lawler, you were expecting something good? Actual words typed up by Scott Keith, in reference to Lawler as a wrestler, not a commentator, and this was in 1997 when Lawler still had it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Someone ought to make a big infograph of dogmatic views at some point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 Someone ought to make a big infograph of dogmatic views at some point I know I used to be guilty of this, but now I try to phrase things differently. Terms like "doesn't do much for me", or, "I've never seen much in this wrestler" are much more open for discussion and reflection than flat out writing off someone. Of course the greater point is that there are those of us who have grown in our critical appraisal of wrestling and those like Keith who are still stuck in that dogmatic, and reductive, mindset. (I should also say I don't mind the dogmatic approach as much when accompanying reasons for said approach.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted June 7, 2014 Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 someone asked him a question about the last good matches from "shitty workers" and lawler & tenta were included in that group. i think there was at least one other good one in that bunch too maybe. keith said he couldn't think of a good tenta match, while for lawler he obviously went with a 93 bret match he also picked summerslam 96 as vader's last good match lollllllllllll also i never noticed that keith finally stopped letting caliber winfield post stuff on his blog. that guy was amazing for all the wrong reasons. let me give a basic rundown: caliber winfield was a hack who tried to make it big on the internet by aping maddox's entire writing style, years after maddox himself had ceased to be relevant. for those lucky enough not to have been exposed to The Best Page In The Universe back in its heyday, i basically mean I'M SO FUCKING AWESOME LOOK AT HOW AWESOME I AM RAAGH MANLINESS RAAGH EXPLOSIONS RAAGH TITS RAAGH BACON. it's done in an over-the-top manner but he's pretty much serious about it all. so this caliber fellow shows up on scott keith's blog to write wrestling reviews with such gems as "that was so fucking good, I popped two boners." he expands from there to movies (according to him, scream is a top 10 all-time film because of its inventiveness or something) and even a piece on dating that triggered a flood of Nice Guy bullshit from the commentariat there. he wrote a book called, surprise surprise, The Man Movie Encyclopedia, and i guess he & scott had a mutual plugging agreement going on. caliber then got caught stealing jokes, either for a cracked.com article or from a cracked.com article (don't know details but it was referenced a ton on the blog), yet he STILL stuck around afterward. last i had seen, he was there shilling his new e-book on (i shit you not) how to safely download torrents. i guess scott finally had a falling out with him somewhere along the line... so yes, as bad as we may think scott is, he has an eye for even worse talent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted June 7, 2014 Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 It’s Jerry Lawler, you were expecting something good? Actual words typed up by Scott Keith, in reference to Lawler as a wrestler, not a commentator, and this was in 1997 when Lawler still had it. Wasn't that review written in 1999 or 2000? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted June 7, 2014 Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 this post You should learn when words should be capitalized. This post was unreadable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petey Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 Who is Maddox? Brad Maddox? Tommy Maddox? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 http://maddox.xmission.com/ Caliber ripped off a lot from him only he's not funny, a plagiarizer and a failure at everything. He's now quit Scott's blog twice after a pretty impressive meltdown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 the other recent funny thing from there that i remember: someone needs scott keith reviews and won't read anyone else's for a given show...because he absolutely must have his precious star ratings and his brain can't process letter grades or any other method of reviewing. no joke, dude went on about this for quite a while to the point that even the rest of the posters there made it a running joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 Why do you refuse to capitalize words? The guy who uses letter grades is terrible, so he has every right to complain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petey Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 I love the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 From Bash at the Beach '97, Trios match: Psychosis/La Parka/Villano IV v. Hector Garza/Juventud Guerrera/Lizmark Jr: I will give WCW credit for putting a real lucha libre style match on the PPV instead of adapting it to American rules. That being said, I don't really care for this style of wrestling and I don't feel comfortable rating it. Only half the guys in this are anything special, however, and Sonny Onoo always drags things down with him. Technicos win after a Villano IV/V switch attempt backfires. Way to really show you are interested in even paying attention to the match there Scott. (Of course, the whole "I don't care for this style comment pisses me off when Keith will rave about said style at other times when it suits his needs to appeal to the workrate demographic.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 That was from a review he wrote in 1997 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 Yep, knew that when I posted the quote, not sure why you're bringing that up though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 Because you're ripping on a guy from a review he wrote 17 years ago? 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.