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

[Loss]

Honestly, I'd kinda prefer if we didn't really go there.

[MikeCampbell]

You're the boss, Loss.

 

So Bix, any other good quotes from the book?

[Guest LShunter]

My favorite Keith-ism is still his claim that Kurt Angle taught Undertaker how to work in 2005.

Oh my God yes, I remember laughing my arse off at that. He actually said 2006, but yeah, it was so goddamn ridiculous. I can't find the actual post, but basically somebody sent in a letter including an excerpt from a rant on an Undertaker PPV match from 2000 in which Keith said something to the effect of "retire now you crippled, washed-up, no-selling has-been". The dude asked if Scott regretted saying that now, considering how many awesome matches Undertaker has had in the past couple of years.

 

Keith quickly dismissed any notion that he was wrong, and he essentially said that Undertaker was a sub-par worker until working with Kurt Angle in 2006 made him better. You know, that 30 minute match they had at No Way Out? Oh, and Wrestlemania XXIV was a bit of a carry job on the part of Edge. I may be exaggerating (I wish I could find exactly what he said) but it was funny stuff regardless.

 

This book really needs to be ripped a new a-hole chapter by chapter, should someone have a protective pair of goggles to get through the book safely.

[tomk]

Just because Undertaker is a better broken down no selling cripple than some of the other broken down no selling criples doesn't make him any less of a broken down no selling cripple.

[Guest LShunter]

Just because Undertaker is a better broken down no selling cripple than some of the other broken down no selling criples doesn't make him any less of a broken down no selling cripple.

I think I went into too much of a tangent there in that post. But yeah, implying that he had to be taught how to work by Kurt Angle in 2006?

 

EDIT: Oh, and I found the original tirade against Undertaker in the Observer review of his second book

 

"Retire now, you crippled, has-been, slow-moving, fried-food eating, no-money-drawing, talentless piece of selfish SHIT."

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

"No-money-drawing" is certainly an odd claim, considering it was made in 2000, just a year after Taker had a huge main event run with Austin. Granted, you could have programmed Austin with most anyone and it would have drawn well in '99 but still, Undertaker held up his end. Summerslam '98 also did a great buyrate during a growth period when WWF PPV shows weren't guaranteed to be huge successes. So calling him out for not being a draw is just lame.

[Cox]

Well, most internet arguments about drawing are lame to begin with, but this one has the added benefit of not being true.

[tomk]

Undertaker was inducted into WON HOF in 2002, and even then Meltzer questioned his status as a draw. He was "most succesful gimmick performer of modern era" and yadda yadda but Meltz in 2004 was unsold on value as draw.

[Loss]

If you consider a draw someone whose absence adversely affects the bottom line, the Undertaker is not a draw. If you consider a draw someone who headlined shows during a boom that had nothing to do with him, Undertaker is a draw, but so are lots of other guys. If you consider a draw someone who posts bigger numbers than their peers when put in the main event spot on the show, Undertaker is not a draw. If you use the first and third points as criteria for being a draw (which I do), John Cena and Rey Misterio (and to a lesser degree, HHH and Batista) are the only people who have drawn since the heyday of Steve Austin and The Rock.

 

If you want to make a pro-Undertaker argument, the argument is that he's a very popular main eventer among wrestling fans, and he has managed to stay a top guy for nearly 20 years in a time period that has seen many changes. Even then, there are counter-arguments about how much he's protected and how he has so many long stretches of being inactive.

 

I'm not an Undertaker hater by any means, and I think he's been better the last few years than he maybe has ever been, but he's not an all-time great.

 

None of this changes the fact that Scott Keith is dumb.

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

I wasn't making an argument that Taker was some sort of huge draw or anything, just that it was strange to give that tag to a guy who had headlined a number of successful pay-per-views just a year prior (not to mention wrestled in the most-watched cable wrestling match ever, but I'm sure we can come up with a few thousand reasons to tear that apart). I guess if you're talking about his run on top in '97, then yeah, you can say he didn't draw money when put in that position.

 

If you want an example of Keith's faulty criteria for drawing, he once referred to Tammy Sytch as Sunny having drawn "insane amounts of money." Or something like that. It was in his Raw 10th anniversary special recap back in '03 if anyone wants to go find it.

[Bix]

While we're talking about Undertaker:

 

Is there a decent argument that while he's incredibly talented and has great matches, he's not necessarily as great a worker as his rep would indicate because he's currently wrestling a style that makes no sense given his current gimmick (magical undead Undertaker again)? I think he's awesome in the ring, but there's a terrible disconnect that seems to miss the big picture: He's clearly doing MMA stuff because he thinks it's cool (which takes me out of suspending disbelief by reminding me what Mark Callaway wants his rep to be) while being pushed as "the best pure striker" ever even though he's not working a strike-based style most of the time and his strikes aren't sold as deadly. Big Show, who he's currently feuding with, is properly presented as a dangerous striker with a knockout punch. Why is Undertaker submitting everyone and knocking nobody out when he's such a great striker?

[Guest LShunter]

While we're talking about Undertaker:

 

Is there a decent argument that while he's incredibly talented and has great matches, he's not necessarily as great a worker as his rep would indicate because he's currently wrestling a style that makes no sense given his current gimmick (magical undead Undertaker again)? I think he's awesome in the ring, but there's a terrible disconnect that seems to miss the big picture: He's clearly doing MMA stuff because he thinks it's cool (which takes me out of suspending disbelief by reminding me what Mark Callaway wants his rep to be) while being pushed as "the best pure striker" ever even though he's not working a strike-based style most of the time and his strikes aren't sold as deadly. Big Show, who he's currently feuding with, is properly presented as a dangerous striker with a knockout punch. Why is Undertaker submitting everyone and knocking nobody out when he's such a great striker?

He's not just a great striker, he's THE BEST PURE STRIKER IN THE GAME. You're right though, the faux-MMA stuff doesn't really suit his character at all. Still, it's better than the old days of just zombie-choking guys.

[tomk]

I don't know if his fake Liddel stuff is about knock out power or instead combinations that make it impossible to avoid getting hit.

 

I also don't think he started working the submission game (gogoplata) until after Liddell got KOd by Rampage. Taker realized that not enough to pretend to be a one dimensional shooter. Have to be a pretend cross trained shooter.

[kjh]

I also don't think he started working the submission game (gogoplata) until after Liddell got KOd by Rampage.

You're forgetting how he tried and failed to get the triangle choke over as a finisher years before that.

[tomk]

Did Undertaker have a triangle choke that got a Max Pain w/ Fujiwara arm bar level response?

 

Or was it Undertaker who had Angle put him in a triangle choke to Max Pain w/ Fujiwara arm bar level crowd response? Memory is they tried for Newton/Hughes shmozz finish with Angle applieing choke and crowd didn't get it.

[MikeCampbell]

I honestly think that it could have gotten over if he hadn't been doing it so poorly that it looked like nothing resembling a lethal submission hold. Plus there wasn't any real catalyst to him using the hold other than Angle's use of it in their match. The only real explantion seemed to be 'Hey, Kurt used it on me and it hurt, I should do it too!'

[kjh]

Both, as Undertaker used the triangle choke as a finisher in his feud with the Big Show in 2003. He also used the move a lot in his matches with Angle in 2006.

[BruiserBrody]

I wasn't making an argument that Taker was some sort of huge draw or anything, just that it was strange to give that tag to a guy who had headlined a number of successful pay-per-views just a year prior (not to mention wrestled in the most-watched cable wrestling match ever, but I'm sure we can come up with a few thousand reasons to tear that apart). I guess if you're talking about his run on top in '97, then yeah, you can say he didn't draw money when put in that position.

 

If you want an example of Keith's faulty criteria for drawing, he once referred to Tammy Sytch as Sunny having drawn "insane amounts of money." Or something like that. It was in his Raw 10th anniversary special recap back in '03 if anyone wants to go find it.

Sunny did move merchandise

 

Not sure about "insane amounts" though

[Guest LShunter]

Both, as Undertaker used the triangle choke as a finisher in his feud with the Big Show in 2003. He also used the move a lot in his matches with Angle in 2006.

It didn't get over as much as the gogoplata because they didn't sell it like death with the whole "internal bleeding" gimmick. I hope the gogoplata is quietly retired, but I doubt it seeing as he's feuding with Big Show again.

[MikeCampbell]

Someone on his blog asked him why he's criticized certain wrestlers and matches for not selling limb work, but when Flair ingored his knee in the Spring Stampede rematch with Steamboat, he didn't mention anything and still have it a high rating. His answer is as follows:

 

"Well, see, there’s a perfectly good explanation, and…WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?

 

…

 

Whew, that was a close one."

[Bix]

http://www.rspwfaq.com/2008/11/the-smark-2...ctober-20-1997/

 

Just want to say thanks to everyone who’s bought the new book thus far, as it’s currently sitting in the top 10 wrestling books on Amazon and has been getting great feedback. I really think it’s my best one so far, although I do want to address one point that a few people have e-mailed about after reading it. In the book, I say that I can separate the man from the performer and continue to enjoy his matches, while on the blog a few days back I said pretty much the opposite. Well, the short answer is that the book was written more than a year ago, when I thought I could cope and move past it. As it turned out, I couldn’t, and I still can’t watch his matches.

[sek69]

Another Scooter gem is in his recaps of the October 1997 Raws from WWE 24/7, he's now pointing out every instance of how Bret was being "buried" leading up to You Know What.

 

I mean, it's not as if Vince was in the midst of trying to wiggle out of the 20 year contract he agreed on or anything. Oh yeah, he totally was.

[tigerpride]

I don't get that one- how does that make him look stupid?

 

The buried thing, not his Benoit quote.

[BruiserBrody]

Keith had listed magnum TA as being drunk when he crashed his car in 86. A few hours later he edited his blog and said his sorry's to Magnum.

[BruiserBrody]

Nitpick here, but in the Raw rant from 97 he gives Taka vs Tajiri ***1/2 stars for a sub 3 minute match.