Best televised WWE matchs since January 1st

[slabinskia 0]

I read keiths reviews because i don't know of anyone else who has detailed reviews with matchlistings on every ppv.i agree with more than half of his reviews but not all.while he is biased towards some wrestlers so am i.i tend to rate flair matches a little high because he is my favorite.im sure many of us rate our favorite wrestlers matches higher than others.all ratings are opinions anyway.i think the rumble is 4 1/2 and hbk/benoit is 3 1/2.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

im sure many of us rate our favorite wrestlers matches higher than others.

I must be the exception, because Raven is my favorite wrestler of all-time and I've not cared for pretty much any of his matches since the Triple Threat where AJ Styles won the NWA World title last June. Everything since then has been your standard ** fare.

[Guest Your Olympic Hero]

Some people obviously like his writing or he wouldn't be as successful as he is.

 

If you don't like his writing, don't read it.

 

Is this too complicated to understand?

[Michrome 0]

I really wonder if you felt intelligent when you posted that. Let me go through a series of steps that may help you out.

 

1) This is a discussion forum

2) People agree and disagree on things in a discussion forum.

3) People bring news articles and columns over to this forum to have debate on them.

4) If everyone liked the same thing, there would be no forum.

 

What is it that you want from this forum, exactly? A big, simulated circle jerk? Some people agree with articles, some people disagree, we post our thoughts here. Well, at least we try to, until idiots like you come around and tell people not to read a column if they don't like it.

[Guest Retro Rob]

Every TSM reviewer ever > Scott "Canadian Fat Fuckface" Keith

Thanks man.

[Austin3164life 0]

Keith is retarded, Brock/Eddy>Royal Rumble, even if it was a Benoit win.

[muzz 0]

I read Keith's reviews because I don't know of anyone else who has detailed reviews with matchlistings on every PPV.

Detailed? He's more concerned with making bad jokes then actually recalling any of the match. Even when he does, his effort is lacking and poor. Which is why...

 

Every TSM reviewer ever > Scott "Canadian Fat Fuckface" Keith

[Guest MikeSC]

I really wonder if you felt intelligent when you posted that. Let me go through a series of steps that may help you out.

 

1) This is a discussion forum

2) People agree and disagree on things in a discussion forum.

3) People bring news articles and columns over to this forum to have debate on them.

4) If everyone liked the same thing, there would be no forum.

 

What is it that you want from this forum, exactly? A big, simulated circle jerk? Some people agree with articles, some people disagree, we post our thoughts here. Well, at least we try to, until idiots like you come around and tell people not to read a column if they don't like it.

I hear what you're saying, BUT

 

If nobody here thinks much of Keith's opinion --- why bring it up? If he is a total idiot or a useless reviewer or a horrid writer --- why even mention him? There are numerous hacks out there who also review shows. Why not rip on them as well?

 

I have gotten a little bored of the Keith bashing. Keith is biased towards Canadian and tends to run jokes into the ground. Yes, I get it.

 

I don't get the point of mentioning it ad infinitum.

-=Mike

[JHawk 0]

Every TSM reviewer ever > Scott "Canadian Fat Fuckface" Keith

Thanks man.

And a "thank you" from me too.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Keith is retarded, Brock/Eddy>Royal Rumble, even if it was a Benoit win.

 

Yeah, but you could argue that, for one, royal rumbles are not one-on-one matches, and must thus be judged on by a different standard. So maybe a ***** Rumble just isn't as good as a **** match, because it's a Royal Rumble, and thus something else entirely.

 

Though I find arguing over a star or two to be silly. I'll admit that I read Keith whenever I need a show recapped, but that's partly due to force of habit, and partly due to the fact that I'm so used to his star ratings that I know how much a given match will entertain me, generally.

[Guest OnlyMe]

I really wonder if you felt intelligent when you posted that.  Let me go through a series of steps that may help you out.

 

1)  This is a discussion forum

2)  People agree and disagree on things in a discussion forum.

3)  People bring news articles and columns over to this forum to have debate on them.

4)  If everyone liked the same thing, there would be no forum. 

 

What is it that you want from this forum, exactly?  A big, simulated circle jerk?  Some people agree with articles, some people disagree, we post our thoughts here.  Well, at least we try to, until idiots like you come around and tell people not to read a column if they don't like it.

I hear what you're saying, BUT

 

If nobody here thinks much of Keith's opinion --- why bring it up? If he is a total idiot or a useless reviewer or a horrid writer --- why even mention him? There are numerous hacks out there who also review shows. Why not rip on them as well?

 

I have gotten a little bored of the Keith bashing. Keith is biased towards Canadian and tends to run jokes into the ground. Yes, I get it.

 

I don't get the point of mentioning it ad infinitum.

-=Mike

I agree with both of you. Scott being a "fat fuckface" is nothing to do with his reviewing skillz, so why bring it up? Attack the argument, not the arguer.

 

That said, it is a strang topic to bring up. "What are your 5 top TV WWE matches this year" allows far more discussion, Scooter can still be brought into it if you want, and you can give your own opinion.

 

Nik

[pochorenella 0]

Keith is retarded, Brock/Eddy>Royal Rumble, even if it was a Benoit win.

 

Yeah, but you could argue that, for one, royal rumbles are not one-on-one matches, and must thus be judged on by a different standard. So maybe a ***** Rumble just isn't as good as a **** match, because it's a Royal Rumble, and thus something else entirely.

 

Though I find arguing over a star or two to be silly. I'll admit that I read Keith whenever I need a show recapped, but that's partly due to force of habit, and partly due to the fact that I'm so used to his star ratings that I know how much a given match will entertain me, generally.

I agree with Maniac. I do usually read Keith's Rants and am familiar with his star rating system so I kinda understand where he's coming from. About being partial to some wrestler, he's admitted numerous times that he's partial to Benoit, Flair, Foley, Hart, and a couple of others. In the particular case of Shawn Michaels, he seems to get that the performer in the ring is one thing and the person outside is other, so while he marks out for HBK when he delivers in the ring he bashes him in stuff like his shoot interview.

 

Of course, I don't take his word as gospel or anything and don't agree with him every single time. I do enjoy his reviews but I also read other's like The Dames and the like. It's always good to hear different points of view from different people, it's a matter of opinion. And wether he's fat, bald, short, or whatever shouldn't be an issue here. Let's discuss the matches, not somebody's personal higiene or something.

[humongous2002 0]

Scott who???

[Open the Muggy Gate 0]

Woah.. the Bahsams on the list? What is SK thinking?

[Highland 0]

The iwc in general likes Benoit, but we have a problem when SK shares the same sentiments

[Just call me Dan 0]

My main problem with these are the Flair/Benoit match (which most of you have already explained), and the fact that he believes Benoit/HBK was better than HHH/HBK from Raw in December. I can't fathom that.

[Insane Bump Machine 0]

Didn't he give HHH/HBK from RAW ****3/4?

[Just call me Dan 0]

Bah, he did. For some reason I was thinking of the rating he gave for HHH/HBK SS 02 (****). My fault.

[Guest ManKinnd]

SK's ratings are usually within 1/2* of Dames' ratings anyway.

I look at as many reviews as I can of a show I haven't seen.