Is scott keith on crack?

[Guest Ihatesmarksandmarks]

Scott keith's blind loyalty to chris jericho sickens me.....how anyone can rate jericho-HHH over rock-hogan? Jericho-HHH was one of the worst main events in wrestlemaina history, boring, dead crowd, shitty booking. How the #### was this 3 and a half stars? Does anyone even remember even half the match? And rock-hogan gets two?? His reasoning is because he was getting so used to "angle and austin suplexing the shit out of each other." Yeah.......great logic. The ONLY thing people will remember from this wrestlemania is rock-hogan.......its apparent keith only rates on workrate and psychology, if this is true than rock-hogan was worse than 2 stars.....but it was obviosuly so much more. This was a 4 star match.....no chris jericho match has ever had half the heat this match had. Everyone is praising rock-hogan as the match of the night, marks and even smarks alike (i saw all you mark out for it last night).

[Guest goodhelmet]

I'll agree that Jericho-HHH didn't deserve *** but neither did Hogan-Rock. Hogan-rock was certainly entertaining but was no **** classic. I posted this last night. If you watch the match again, you can see how thin the match really was. In fact, the only match I had rated at *** or higher was Kane-Angle...at ***.

[Guest Ihatesmarksandmarks]

I think rock-hogan will go down like hogan-andre.....a bad match workrate wise, but a classic. The Rock-hogan match is going to be something that will be remebered for years.....thats saying a lot about a match. You really cant say the same for HHH-jeircho and certainly not angle-kane. It does not deserve a 2 star rating.....only if u rate it on workrate and psychology which is ALL keith does.

[Guest Tony149]

HHH/Jericho wasn't great. Hogan/Rock wasn't Flair/Steamboat, but if you judged matches on crowd heat, then Hogan/Rock is *****.

[Guest Some Guy]

Keith compared Hogan/Rock to Hogan/Warrior, which is fair enough only this match had more even more heat than that one and was more entertaining, IMO.

[Guest The Man in Blak]

I guess that's why they call it an opinion.  *cough*

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

God forbid that someone actually rates a match according to quality instead of crowd heat.

[Guest Brian]

On third view, I thought that aside from the bad finish, it would have been ***1/2. That finish wasn't good at all; as Triple H who nearl couldn't get up from pedigreeing Stephanie easily pinned Jericho.

[Guest Ihatesmarksandmarks]

I respect someone's opinon....but sometimes its a little ridicolous. Its like saying game 7 of the world series or this years super bowl were just decent.....they were obviously two great games that will be remebered for a long time. I think the same thing applies to this match, i mean you can say it was only 2 stars......but that doesnt give your opinon much credbility.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

"I respect someone's opinon....but sometimes its a little ridicolous. Its like saying game 7 of the world series or this years super bowl were just decent.....they were obviously two great games that will be remebered for a long time. I think the same thing applies to this match, i mean you can say it was only 2 stars......but that doesnt give your opinon much credbility. "

 

This years Super Bowl was just decent with a hot ending (same with Super Bowl XXXIV).  For a much better Super Bowl watch Super Bowl XXXII (Green Bay vs. Denver).  That was a classic game.

[Guest Ihatesmarksandmarks]

i have watched eveey super bowl since about 1989 or so....i agree green bay-denver was a more well played game, probably better than both rams super bowls. But hey i am from boston so i am greatly biased about this years super bowl...

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Ok.  It was a good Super Bowl, but the first three quarters were kind of boring (Rams were awful), followed by a fantastic fourth.

 

I too was happy to see Boston finally win something.  They deserved it.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

Keith always does that.

 

Look at the No Way Out rant.

 

Somehow Angle vs. HHH got a better rating than alot of the much better matches. (Tag team turmoil, RVD/Goldust).

 

That's why his rants are meaningless.  He plays favorites and refuses to beleive that certain people can have bad matches.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

To be fair, SK rates each match in a Tag Team Turmoil separately.

[Guest The Man in Blak]

Of course, he just said in his last review that Triple H hasn't really had a good match since his return...

 

So, instead of playing favorites, maybe he's just a hypocrite.  

Regardless, it's an opinion nonetheless.

[Guest Troy Maskell]

I don't think he was being that biased maybe Trip-Jericho didn't deserve ***1/2 but then again Rock-Hogan probably didn't deserve ** either comparing anything to RVD-Goldust is a joke

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Keith gave HHH/Jericho ***1/4, not ***1/2.  And he gave HHH/Angle **1/2, which is the same rating he gave RVD/Goldust.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

Right...but the match (Angle vs. HHH at No Way Out) featured like 3 ref bumps...4 interference spots...no chain wrestling...no actual movement from man mountain rock HHH...Step as ref...and a partridge in a pare tree.

 

**1/2?  for the most over booked match in the history of Wrestling?

 

If the particapants in that exact situation had been Undertaker and Kane....(even if they DID have some kind of psychology or actual wrestling) would have touched negative stars.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Understood, but its not like he gave it **** or even liked the match.

[Guest]

I agree, two stars is an insult to the Rock & Hogan, to the hype, and to the crowd at "the Center of the Universe."  

 

Did I like the match? Yes. I thought that it was great. I have not marked that much for a long time. But, the actual wrestling wasn't the greatest. But, I know another match that Scott gave 5 stars, that was not that much better than this one. Shawn Michaels vs. Jeff Jarrett from In Your House 2 in Nashville.

 

The only major difference between the two matches was that the wrestling in Shawn/JJ was better. But not that much better. Much of the 20 minutes was stalling by JJ. Watch the match, and judge for yourself.

 

I'm not stating that Rock/Hogan was better or as good as that match, but if that was a 5 star classic, Rock/Hogan should be 4 stars.

 

Ben Treutler

[Guest Troy Maskell]

I'm afraid I don't agree in one sense

 

While Shawn/JJ probably wasn't worth the 5 it definatly was better than Rock-Hogan I thought they did a good job to put on an entertaining match at IYH

 

Back Rakes and Chokes are not entertaining hoever you dissect it IMHO Scott was being generous at **

[Guest Cataclysm911]

Who gives a fuck about what Scott Keith says? Can't you people just form your own opinion and then go by that?

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

For the record I have bumped Hogan and Rock up to ***1/4 to make it my MOTN...it was previously at ***...but after watching it again and seing Hogan put Rock over...and bust ass knowing that his rib was really hurting...they deserve MOTN honors.

 

and HHH can go to ####.

[Guest dreamer420]

Smarks can't.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Smarks (like myself) can't because we knew the show would suck and didn't watch it.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott keith's blind loyalty to chris jericho sickens me.....how anyone can rate jericho-HHH over rock-hogan?

 

 

Maybe because the reviewer prefers HHH v Jericho over Rock v Hogan?

 

There really is no need to get upset that somebody thought a match was worse than you thought it was.

 

 

 

Jericho-HHH was one of the worst main events in wrestlemaina history, boring, dead crowd, shitty booking. How the #### was this 3 and a half stars? Does anyone even remember even half the match? And rock-hogan gets two?? His reasoning is because he was getting so used to "angle and austin suplexing the shit out of each other." Yeah.......great logic.>>>

 

 

 

He used that as a comparison to the weak brawling and poor ring work of Rock v Hogan. He also said that Hogan v Warrior from WM VI was a similar match with better psychology and a more believable offense.

 

He, at the least, explained his beef.

 

 

 

The ONLY thing people will remember from this wrestlemania is rock-hogan.......its apparent keith only rates on workrate and psychology, if this is true than rock-hogan was worse than 2 stars.....but it was obviosuly so much more.

 

 

 

Hasn't Keith generally said that ringwork is the basis for his reviews?

 

 

This was a 4 star match.....no chris jericho match has ever had half the heat this match had.

 

 

 

No, he probably didn't.

 

The crowd was really hot for Hogan v Andre at WM III. Doesn't mean the match was any good.

 

Also, let's see how hot the crowd gets when Rock comes in as Steph's lackey and Hogan has his dog get run over.

 

 

Everyone is praising rock-hogan as the match of the night, marks and even smarks alike (i saw all you mark out for it last night).

 

 

 

Not everybody.

 

Evidently, Keith didn't.

                -=Mike

[Guest Coffin Surfer]

Personally I think both matches were pretty bad(average).  Rock/Hogan is a ** generously and HHH/Jericho is like a **3/4 in my worthless opinion.  A **** match to me is something around Benoit/Sasuke.  

 

I feel crowd heat adds to the match.  It doesn't make the match. Its just one of the ingredients.  

 

As far Scott Keith goes, he is only human, and last I checked he wasn't the all mighty judge of match quality.  I personally enjoy alot of his reviews, and agree with the majority.  I use his reviews more like a guide to form my own opinion, not use them as the law of the land.

[Guest Vyce]

You can't go by Keith.  I like Keith's reviews because I find his commentary amusing at times, but he's horribly biased, and you shouldn't base your views on him or his ratings system.  

 

I'm not sad that he rated Rock / Hogan so low, but if you are, remember this one fact - Keith HATES Hogan, so any Hogan match, especially a modern one, runs the risk of a very low rating.

[Guest Youth N Asia]

Hogan vs Rock...sure the match is being reviewed as better then it actually was because of the crowd.

 

You people are looking at it one of two ways...bad match and shouldn't be a classic based on crowd alone...or classic match based on crowd alone.

 

The match itself...I thought it was a pretty good brawl, and the crowd made it that much more special. I enjoyed the match a lot, and it will go down as a classic.

 

Jericho vs HHH...I was just a little disapointed...I expected the match to go on a little longer...and it bugs me that they gave HHH a bogus injury just to make his win more dramatic. The match, look what it had to follow, the crowd was just dead tired and ready to go home after Rock and Hogan...not a bad match by any means though...and a clean finish...I was expecting more, but it was enjoyable.

 

Two main events with clean finishes *rubs eyes* did that really happen.

[Guest converge241]

I loved the Rock -Hogan match and voted it best match, but I think the star rating system is based on actual quality of the match. I think Scott is judging based on a vacuum just looking at the work, psycholgy, storytelling. Im just guessing on that. Even if that wasnt the case, those are based on his opinions. Those differing opinions dont sign you up at The Carter building to sit down and get a hit of Pookie's crackpipe.

 

IMOHO, I thought the Jericho - HHH match might have more crowd heat if it went on before the crowd got deflated.