Guest RickyB Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 Scott Keith Raw Rant: I think the ovation is because everyone realized that Hogan may have just done the most brilliant political end-run around the entire babyface hierarchy that I’ve ever seen. HHH is now officially out of his league – Hogan is the true genius of professional wrestling and I stand in awe of the way he leapfrogged everyone and made them all think that he was doing them a favor by doing so. And he LOST THE MATCH. Seriously, this makes HHH gaining power by giving Stephanie the high hard one look like Larry Zbyszko marrying Verne Gagne’s daughter for the AWA World title by comparison. Hogan even dumped the dead weight of Hall & Nash once it was apparent that he was the only one worth anything. You just have to tip your hat to anyone self-absorbed enough to not only attempt to sabotage the entire upper-card for the purpose of getting himself pushed, but succeed. What the #### is he talking about? Where the #### could he get the idea that Hogan did all this as a political thing? I don't get it, he bitches about Hogan not jobbing then Hogan jobs to The Rock... but oh no, Hogan can't just job to the Rock - no it has to be a political thing. He jobbed to the Rock so that he could sabotage the whole Upper Card... oh yeah that must be it. If he jobs to the Rock that means that Vince McMahon has to push him... WTF is he talking about?? WTF was he smoking when he posted this? I mean I never taken Scott's opinion for much before now but his opinion means nothing at all to me now with this crap. I mean if he's going to say something about Hogan that isn't a proven fact then at least say something based on a rumour, not just on things made up in your twisted mind.
Guest godthedog Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 well if you think about it, it IS rather amazing that hogan ended up being the most over man in the company after jobbing cleanly to the rock. SK just interprets it differently: he thinks hogan did it on purpose as a massive political move, i think it had more to do with being with the right crowd at the right time. i think there are way too many conspiracy theories on the net, but to each his own.
Guest RickyB Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 It's kinda stupid to think that if Hogan does some political thing backstage then the crowd would suddenly cheer him, no-one could predict that. Hogan was the most over man at WM X8 so saying that him losing the match made any difference to the fans reaction is BS. Hogan has done nothing wrong backstage so for once Scott should shut his mouth before he looks even more stupid or admit he's wrong about Hogan like bps did.
Guest dreamer420 Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 Have you read any of his reviews lately? Nothing makes this guy happy anymore and his rants are all bitching and not so funny anymore.
Guest goodhelmet Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 I thin kif you read it closely, it was said tongue in cheek as a slight on Hogan's reputation as a backstage cancer. As for Keith's rants, I can't say I disagree with him on the quality of the WWF's matches lately. for the talent they have , the shows have been really below average.
Guest cabbageboy Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 I doubt that Hogan could predict that he would be so wildly cheered over the Rock. I am guessing he figured that it would be similar to Warrior where both men got cheered and no one was booed. I remember in Beyond the Mat where Terry Funk lost his "retirement" match to Bret and said it was simply unrealistic to think an old bastard like him could beat the current world champ. Maybe Hogan had an attack of Funkitis and realized that it is kinda silly to expect an old dude like him--regardless of how great he used to be--to beat the Rock. This might sound totally insane, but Hogan has been a breath of fresh air in the WWF. It feels somehow right to have him finish his career there. I've never been the biggest fan of Hogan but I must admit that I hated the way he went out in WCW with Russo cussing him out.
Guest RickyB Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 I thin kif you read it closely, it was said tongue in cheek as a slight on Hogan's reputation as a backstage cancer. As for Keith's rants, I can't say I disagree with him on the quality of the WWF's matches lately. for the talent they have , the shows have been really below average. I don't know, it seemed tongue in cheek when I read it over. But the way that he rufuses to give any credit to Hogan for anything he did pisses me off, Hogan worked his ass off at Wrestlemania even though he had a legit rib injury from his match with Rikishi in Tampa and the match was match of the night according to everyone but Scott Keith. And just to be different he goes and gives HHH Vs Jericho ***1/2 and says that it was match of the night. The fact is that all Scott Keith does now is bash Hogan because he doesn't like him. While most people have admitted that they were wrong and that Hogan's done well Scott Keith has continued to bash Hogan. Rock/Hogan was the highlight of WMX8 yet Scott Keith can't even bring himself to say that... I guess we'll have to put up with more Hogan bashing after Smackdown hosted by the "Usual Idiot".
Guest bps "The Truth" 21 Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 Please don't go spreading around the fact that I admitted being wrong.... ...I've got a reputation to uphold...
Guest RickyB Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 Please don't go spreading around the fact that I admitted being wrong.... ...I've got a reputation to uphold... Ok not "Admitted he was wrong", admitted he wasn't right
Guest goodhelmet Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 (hey bps, that avatar is so you man!) "and the match was match of the night according to everyone but Scott Keith. " actually, while the match was compelling, I only gave it **1/2. I thought Kane-Angle was better than anything else, botched ending forgiven. Rock-Hogan was exciting but the match itself was really weak. "The fact is that all Scott Keith does now is bash Hogan because he doesn't like him. " That's the best reason.
Guest Big McLargeHuge Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 Why should you even care what Scott thinks? It's his opinion. Just because everyone and their mother has been kissing Hogan's ass since Sunday doesn't mean he has to jump on the bandwagon as well. He doesn't like the guy. Case closed. He doesn't have to like him. Shit, I don't like Hogan either and to be honest he Hogan lovefest is really bothering me. The match at Mania was shit. The crowd heat was incredible, but it doesn't change my opinion of Hogan. Just because Toronto loved him, doesn't mean he's a fucking saint all of a sudden.
Guest RickyB Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 Why should you even care what Scott thinks? It's his opinion. Just because everyone and their mother has been kissing Hogan's ass since Sunday doesn't mean he has to jump on the bandwagon as well. He doesn't like the guy. Case closed. He doesn't have to like him. Shit, I don't like Hogan either and to be honest he Hogan lovefest is really bothering me. The match at Mania was shit. The crowd heat was incredible, but it doesn't change my opinion of Hogan. Just because Toronto loved him, doesn't mean he's a fucking saint all of a sudden. Well i've liked the guy for years, look back at the posts before Hogan came into the WWF and I was supporting him then. It pisses me off that people say they don't like Hogan because "he never puts anyone over" then he puts over the Rock and people still don't like him. Yet it's fine for Austin to refuse to work with Angle, Benoit, Jarret and then refusing to job to Hall in something that was going to lead to the biggest Angle in Wrestling history. For once look at things from an unbiased view.
Guest goodhelmet Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 Ok, I don't recall Austin ever refusing to work with Angle or Benoit. Only Jarrett, Hogan and Hall. I'm sorry but the first NWO incarnation was one of the biggest angles of all time. The WWFlite version is just a half-assed attempt by Vince to milk the name before people get bored in a month. And it's been debtaed numerous times, but there should have been no way Austin should have put over Scott Hall who was a ? going into the show.
Guest RickyB Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 What I mean by biggest Angle of all time was that Vince & the nWo were going to interfiere and cost Austin the match and that was why Linda McMahon was going to announce the split, the whole thing was set up so that it would be split because McMahon cost Austin the match. As it ended up Austin, being the egotistical jerk that he is, refused to put Hall over and ended up ruining the biggest angle of all time. And about Austin refusin to work with Benoit and angle, this is from the Wrestleview FAQ: It was believed that Austin wouldn't fight anyone that he doesn't think is in his "league". In 1999 Jeff Jarrett left the WWF after being promised a short feud with Austin. Austin kept turning it down so Jarrett got fed up and left. Austin has also refused to feud with Chris Benoit, Billy Gunn, Kurt Angle, although that was a while ago, which isn't the case anymore, because he did fight Benoit and Angle.
Guest goodhelmet Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 Ok, but I have no clue what Wrestleview isor where they get their info. As for being a jerk, fine. Wouldn't a more logical storyline have involved Vince interfering in Flair's match, thus creating the split. That's the WWF's fault, not Austin's. It's also not Austin's fault that every story they had up until Trips and the NWO's return was placed on the backburner.
Guest bps "The Truth" 21 Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 I blame the Undertaker. He probably didn't want it to look like he couldn't beat Flair without help at "WrestleMania" The jerk. Of course I have nothing to back that up........
Guest goodhelmet Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 You can't back it up but you're avatar is the game so you must be holding everyone down!
Guest Anglesault Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 Hey, don't mock the avatar. It's not just a yawn, it's an INTENSE yawn!
Guest goodhelmet Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 It would be even more intense if it would spit out water! Hey Anglesault, why dont you change your avatar to Edge in honor of Angle's most recent feud?
Guest Anglesault Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 Because I would rather chew tin foil. Does anyone know if there is a little Angle somewhere?
Guest Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 Scott Keith is just like any of us talking here, except he went one step further and posts on his own site. If that's his opinion, that's cool. Hogan didn't politic to every fan in the Skydome. This had nothing to do with politics. It had everything to do with Hogan being the biggest wrestler in history; that's why he has shot straight to the top of the company.
Guest Human Fly Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 Scott Keith can't be satisfied. First it was "When is Rock coming back" the "Bring Ric Flair" then "When is HHH coming back" and most recently "When is NWO coming in". His stuff is good, but for the last 8 or so months it's been a non stop bitchfest.
Guest JMac Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 I just think Scott is being skeptical. It's obvious that he doesn't like Hogan and therefore didn't see that match the same way all of us did. A wrestling classic it was not but I haven't enjoyed a match like that for a long time.
Guest bps "The Truth" 21 Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 I don't like Hogan...but I still enjoyed the match. And we all know how stubborn I am... SO I think that Keith should keep some of it to himself...his writing is becoming less enjoyable than a Hulk Hogan match. Hehehe.
Guest TheHulkster Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 Its impossible to have been a political move anyway. The weeks building up to mania, he was pushed as a huge heel. He did nothing to bring about a face reaction. Whenever he did get a face reaction, he tried his best to change it by bashing the fans outright. Watch the begining of the match, Hogan works as a heel untill its blatantly obvious that he isnt the heel in the match and they had to change gears. Scott is just a mark for the internet, not trying to be objective at all.
Guest Some Guy Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 Keith is just a little bit over exposed, IMO. I'm guessing that most of us have read a lot of his rants past andresent. The guy is writing at least to a week and for a while was writing a book at the same time. I'll actaully credit him for not bowing to popular opinion as he often does. It is his opinion and you can agree or disagree, I'll disagree about Hogan.
Guest notJames Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 As has been said before, SKeith's opinions are just that... his opinions. Sure he's scathing and biased. He's admitted it on numerous occasions. And some people. like myself, still find him entertaining, although we're not always in agreement. It's not like any of us can demand that he cater to our whims and wishes. Unlike the Fed, none of us pay for his services and probably couldn't sway his opinions with any organized boycott of any sort. If he's really that played out and boring to you, there are so many alternatives. The best one being, of course, to watch the shows and form your own opinion.s And of course, there's always Eric Szuluvwxyzetcetc... I hear he's not too biased, eh?
Guest goodhelmet Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 I disagree. I still think his rib on Hogan was just that.. a rib, due to Hogan's past as a politician. And I agree totally with his assessment. The match was super heated but from a wrestling standpoint it was extremely thin. And to be honest, if it weren't for SKs rants I would have missed out on some truly great matches since I basically boycotted wrestling from 1990 (the cartoon era)- 1996.
Guest notJames Posted March 21, 2002 Report Posted March 21, 2002 Too true. I missed out on most of 92-96, so I had nary an inkling that a little guy like Shawn Michaels was getting pushed to the moon, much less exhibiting the mega-skills he did. But thanks to SKeith, I was able to hit the local Blockbuster and rent some of those bad boys to find out if all the fuss was true. And also thanks to him, I could avoid all the stinkeroos that came out of the "New Generation" era. Ugh.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now