Keith rants sucked before 98, no kidding

[Guest Captian Linger]

I was checking Scott's old WCW '97 reviews to see what shows Akira Hokuto appeared on since I'm a big joshi fan and I actually read some of the match reviews as well.

 

They were horrible. Contained was a Jericho vs Ultimo Dragon match that he rated ***1/2 and then said it wasn't that good! Then he'd rate another one of their matches the same rating and would say that it was good. Make up your damn mind! Go to Staurt's site, the guy actually know what a ***1/2 rating means, consistently no less.

 

The reviews were full of disrespect for the wrestlers filled with hateful comments like "Hogan should die" and such. While I'd rather not see Hogan at all, wishing death on someone just makes you look like a total idiot.

 

Hokuto vs Medusa, saying that 'and people think the WWF's women's divison sucks'. Yeah, WWF girls are wayyyy better than Akira freakin' Hokuto, one of the best female workers of all time. I know she probably dogged it in WCW but comon, I'd rather see Hokuto dog it than any female in WWF.

 

Anyways, yep, Scott's old stuff really sucks. It's almost dumbfounding that he made something decent of himself in the following years after such a horrible start.

[Guest RSPWFAQ]

Wow, if it was 5 years ago you sure would have showed me.

[Guest dreamer420]

I liked reading his older rants better than the ones he writes today.  Everything is so goddamn negative now that it makes reading the rants boring.  I'll probably just stop reading them so there is no need for anyone to suggest it.

[Guest Captian Linger]

You were still the same person 5 years ago, were you not?

[Guest Captian Linger]

One another note, I can read jdw's old work at RSPW from five years ago and it's still as competent as what he writes today about matches.

 

Granted, he's not a regular match review, but I still give his opinions more weight than yours from any time.

 

So there;).

[Guest Pegasus Kid]

There's something funny about a guy bashing Scott while singing the praises of old JDW with a Kawada avatar no less.  He'll make a lovely fleece one of these days.

[Guest The Masked Yodeler]

Who's JDW?

[Guest Captian Linger]

There's something funny about a guy bashing Scott while singing the praises of old JDW with a Kawada avatar no less.  He'll make a lovely fleece one of these days.

Gee, Justin, I used to think you were a nice guy. No more "Faggot Knees to the Head" for you you, bad boy;).

[Guest Pegasus Kid]

There's something funny about a guy bashing Scott while singing the praises of old JDW with a Kawada avatar no less.  He'll make a lovely fleece one of these days.

Gee, Justin, I used to think you were a nice guy. No more "Faggot Knees to the Head" for you you, bad boy;).

I'd like to think I'm a nice guy but taking a stab at Scott over snowflakes is going to bring some form of retaliation.  Jericho vs Dragon ***1/2 while stating it wasn't the best match is a viable option.  Just take a look at Misawa vs Kawada 6/97.  I'm not sure what crop you're in (no offense either way) but I'm of the group that isn't very big on this match due to the overuse of the Backdrop Driver among other things.  I rated it ***3/4.  Now in my opinion, the match wasn't really that good, especially in comparison to their other work, but the rating is still justified.  

 

No more "Faggot Knees to the Head" for you you, bad boy;).

 

If that jab wasn't a year old I might be offended.  

[Guest Anorak]

I think his older reviews are much better than his more recent stuff from the past year or so. Much of his insults are exaggerated on purpose to give his writing a distinctive vein of humour and create his own identifiable style which stands out. His style is opinionated, cynical and flippant, so if his own view is the complete opposite to your own his reviews naturally make you mad. One persons rating of a match is no more legitimate or accurate than somebody elses, we all have our own opinions and being elitist about something like wrestling is just absurd. I dont care for star ratings one bit myself but Scott's reviews are nearly always an interesting read even if i dont always agree with what he's saying.

[Guest bwood9983]

I can honestly say that i've spent my share of time reading SK's reviews of older shows. Whether they are better or worse than current rants is not the key issue here. In my opinion, the key point is: I am not paying Scott one cent to read his reviews. Whether they suck or have me cracking up is just a benefit/negative of a free service. If I get a free cd in the mail, and it sucks, am I going to go complain? No! I simply get rid of it, or in the case of SK, stop reading. However the reverse is also true. I love his rants, and anticipate the new book. In this way, potential customers know what they are getting when Scott finishes the book.

 

To summerize my rambling, if you dislike a rant, SHUT UP. You aren't losing anything except the time it took to read it.

[Guest Kingpk]

What I don't get is why this guy is bashing Scott for stuff he wrote 4-5 years ago.  Can we at least bring the bitching into the 21st century please?

[Guest Slapnuts00]

What I don't get is why this guy is bashing Scott for stuff he wrote 4-5 years ago.  Can we at least bring the bitching into the 21st century please?

I think he's asking for a re-rant in a round a bout way. I'd agree since those shows either don't have star ratings, have rushed reviews or both.

[Guest Below the Glass Ceiling]

What I don't get is the criticism of the match rating.  It's no secret that the rants are all Scott's OPINIONS.  So what if he likes one match more than the other, even though it's the same two guys?

[Guest Captian Linger]

To Justin-I'm one of the biggest detractors of 6/97 Misawa/Kawada. I've covered it several times on the old board.

 

My argument wasn't that ***1/2 was too low for Jericho/Dragon, if anything it was too high.

 

My problem is word accociation. He calls one Jericho/Dragon ***1/2 calling it "good" then calls another match they had 'not what they're capable of', but still rated it ***1/2. Consistency would be appreciated.

[Guest DebilitatorX]

I agree with dreamer420...there is no pleasing the Almighty Scott Keith these days.

[Guest Captian Linger]

I like I'm going to have to use the dreaded name drop that will probably get me banned from the forum but I'll risk it;).

 

Some of Scott's rating style reminds me of old Sean Shannon reviews.

 

I remember Shannon bitching that a Super Crazy vs Tajirir TV match "wasn't that good" and rated it ***. Well...Then why rate it in the "good" range? Show some balls and rate it lower. I'd complain if a Flair/Steamboat or Misawa/Kawada only managed **1/2 but anything *** and above is quality work.

 

Once open a time, when I first start going crazy buying old tapes, I used to base those purchases from Scott's reviews. Now I realize that I haven't the slightest clue what to expect from a match that he rated in the ***1/2 range, much less why TLC matches rate as highly as Flair/Steamboat 1989.

 

I don't want a re-rant, I want a de-rant;).

[Guest GWP Steve]

Scott's inconsistency is something that bothers me at times too...

 

Thumbs in the middle, leaning down for the “biggest night in the history of our sport.” (Survivor Series 2001)

 

However, a glance at the star ratings he handed out reveal that all actual wrestling matches (ie: not the battle royale and women's title match) received around or *** with no DUD's to speak of, and the Main Event rated at ****. Well, gee, that sounds like a thumbs up to me. But of course, HHH didn't return that night like people had hoped, so it was a terrible terrible PPV. I'm not sure if Scott is rating on match quality of hype quality anymore. He closes each rant with a Reccomendation, and in this case he doesn't give a trademark "avoid", but just says he can't reccomend it. Why not? Anyone watching it after the PPV would know the results, therefore would be watching the event out of the context of the angle - something perhaps YOU should try as a reviewer of matches - and would probably like it.

 

If Scott were to reply to this, all he would say is "Well star ratings are meaningless anyway and it's pretty stupid to argue over them" (his defense when people pointed out to him how many ***-**** matches he gave HHH pre 2000, despite him caliming he showed zero promise in the past), so I probably just wasted my time.

 

GWP Wrestling. People from this board write there! Me! GWP Pat! GWP Devil! JUDAS! bps21! VISIT!

[Guest Captian Linger]

Yep. Read his latest Stampede rant and it has two ***+ matches iirc. But still gave it the highest recommendation. Considering that Scott would consider a WWF PPV with only two ***+ matches a huge dissapointment, it doesn't other that consistency that we should only hope for in tape reviewers.

 

Scott Keith's reviews: Strong recommendation to avoid;).

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

"Scott Keith's reviews: Strong recommendation to avoid;)."

 

-Captain Linger: needs to get a life

[Guest RetroRob215]

Yep. Read his latest Stampede rant and it has two ***+ matches iirc. But still gave it the highest recommendation. Considering that Scott would consider a WWF PPV with only two ***+ matches a huge dissapointment, it doesn't other that consistency that we should only hope for in tape reviewers.

 

I think you're wrong in comparing a Stampede show to a current WWF show.  I have written a few tape reviews and I tried to recommend shows based on what I expected going in.  

 

For example, I would recommend a two hour long Indy show with a ***1/2 match and a *** match because that's not expected.  You expect a lot of crap and maybe 1 *** match from any Indy show.

 

Now if the WWF held a 2 hour event that same night and also had a ***1/2 match and *** match, I wouldn't recommend it because I expect better than that from the WWF.

 

Going back to Stampede, those matches took place in the mid-80's, so I'm sure Scott based his recommendation on nostalgia rather than match quality.  All in all, does Scott really need to justify to you or anyone else why he recommended a show?  It's not like you pay to read his rants...

 

I'm all for consistency in match ratings/reccomendations, but I also understand how certain factors like nostalgia, favoritism, and the time period of an event can cause a reviewer to adapt their rating system.

[Guest Captian Linger]

You really expect more from the WWF??? That's a reviewing flaw right off the bat;).

[Guest Kingpk]

Here's an idea for the Capt.:

 

Go to the Smark Crew board and post some tape reviews yourself.  You seem to be fairly opinionated about Scott's reviews so why don't you offer a counterpoint?

[Guest RetroRob215]

You really expect more from the WWF??? That's a reviewing flaw right off the bat;).

If I'm spending $30 on a PPV, you better believe I'm expecting more than a ***1/2 match.  

 

As for my comparision, you could replace the WWF with New Japan for all I care.  The point is that you expect more from a wealthy company with a large fanbase than from a hole in the wall Indy fed or a 1980's regional fed.

[Guest Captian Linger]

I won't do tape reviews for a number of reasons. And I'll run through them here.

 

1. People put no stock in my opinons: Who am I? There's a deterrent right off the bat. I'd be glad to reffer you someone else if you're looking for match reviews. I'd be happy to tell you what I think of matches if people ask on the boards but as far as writing entire reviews, I don't honestly think people will read them because I have no name value.

 

2. I'm not saying I could do better, I'm saying that as a fan that wants to buy tapes, Scott's reviews when looked at in the scope of the last 5 years can come off as confusing due to incosistencies and obvious biases. If it's Scott's job to just give his opinions relevant to his specific tastes, he's doing an ok job. If his job is to help out the reader to point them to the overall quality of wrestlign shows, I feel he is lacking in many areas. Buyer beware.

 

3. I don't have the time. Yes, I do have the time to post time wasting threads such as this one but doing an actual full review of a show would infringe on my time needed in other areas. Now if a guy from a website were *paying* me something or that I was guaranteed some readership, I might give it a shot.

 

4. It's much funner just to complain;).

[Guest J*ingus]

As an impartial observer commenting on the original argument, I gotta agree, yeah, a lot of Scott's 97-ish rants aren't anywhere near the quality of what he's done over the past couple of years.

[Guest Ghast]

"Scott Keith's reviews: Strong recommendation to avoid;)."

 

-Captain Linger: needs to get a life

LOL...I agree 100% man. Captain Linger, there his opinions. He does this for free so he doesn't have to be consitent for you or anyone else. You come off as pathetic and jealous of his success.

 

And what does IIRC mean? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[Guest Sek]

I actually think Keith's rants were better back then because it seemed like he was doing it because he enjoyed it, not because of some kind of sense of obligation to readers who he makes no money from (unless they BUY HIM STUFF~!).

 

My only problem with Keith's reviews has always been how he completely goes againts what he says is fact in them. Example of this being how he's one of the main supporters of the "Steph made HHH" theory, yet almost every HHH match from 98 on gets at least ***+ from him. Star ratings don't matter if they disprove a point, but they are essential when they prove a point.

 

The rampant negativity is getting a bit played out, but it seems to be a requirement on the net these days. Even Da Meltz is getting all sarcasitc on us, so I can't blame Scott for that. Then again, Meltz actually seems to have the ability to influence the WWF, DDP reading SK rants doesn't exactly mean you have Vince at your beck and call.

 

Hey its Scott's opinons and he's entitled to them, but all I'm saying is I used to spend hours in the Tape Reviews section...now I don't even look forward to a new rant because I know its going to get shat upon no matter what happens.