Upcoming Scott Keith Q & A Session

[bob_barron 0]

Why? Since when are writers not entitled to be compensated for their work?

 

This is just my opinion on the subject. If I had my way, anyone who makes money off of a tragedy (especially one that isn't even a year old yet), should have to give a portion of it back.

 

That doesn't make any sense. What defines a tragedy, what would be the grace period be for this tragedy? If I write about a tragedy 300 years ago, am I required to give money there?

 

Why should a writer be punished for wanting to write about something, even if it's about something sad.

[bob_barron 0]

SK responds to some factual errors he's made-

 

"Scott-

 

Looking back on some old rants, I was wondering about some different

statements you made. I clarified things with Dave Meltzer, and found you

were often in error. For example:

 

-You state that Steve Austin was booked to win the WWF title at Final Four

but things were changed mid match when Austin got hurt. Meltzer says that

the match went as planned and Hart was always booked to win the title.

 

-You say that Ludvig Borga/Lex Luger was the original plan at Wrestlemania

10, only changed when Borga hurt his ankle. While it may have been when

Borga first came in, it was soon changed. WWF wouldn't have put Luger clean

over Borga at Survivor Series if that was their Wrestlemania main event, so

clearly they knew at that point this wasn't going to be the WM10 main event.

Also, to counter another common myth, according to Meltzer the whole thing

with Luger opening his big mouth and Vince having to change the results of

WM10 as a result is a myth and things went down exactly as planned.

 

-You say that the original main event for In Your House #1 was a rematch

between Diesel and Shawn Michaels, and it was changed when Sid hurt HBK with

his powerbombs on RAW. Meltzer says this is wrong and the plan was always

Diesel vs. Sid.

 

-In your Mind Games rant you say: "The finish is then changed on the fly by

Vince McMahon, as he relays the instructions to wrap things up to the

battered guys...Original booking had Mankind winning the title here, but

something happened and it was decided to go with either Vader or Sid

instead." Meltzer says that this is false, and that the match went down

exactly as planned, even if it could appear otherwise. And you'd think that

if what you said was true, Mick Foley would have mentioned it in his book.

 

I think you should clarify on your site that you were wrong on these points,

just so these rumors don't continue to perpetuate."

 

I think most of these have already been clarified more than a few times, but hey, we'll hit them again.

 

1. On the Austin-Hart thing, I had always heard, albeit not from Meltzer but from people who at least would have known pretty well what was going on, that Austin was originally booked as the winner. If Dave says it's not so than I defer to him but I certainly wasn't alone over the years in thinking this one.

 

2. The Borga one comes from Borga himself. He bragged about it to a reader of mine for an interview in Finland, and the info was sent to me as an interesting tibdit to come out of the interview. The Luger "New York Post" story is a fairly famous wrestling urban myth which pretty much everyone on the internet took as gospel in the days before Meltzer came online. It was indeed pretty firmly debunked a couple of years back.

 

3. The Diesel-Shawn rumor stemmed from RSPW back in the day. I always thought it had merit, but I guess not.

 

4. The Mankind-Shawn match caused a lot of raised eyebrows back in 96 online because of Shawn's worked hissy fit, plus the weak ending and Jim Ross's boo-boo where he seemed to indicate that it would be a title change by hyping the Undertaker-Mankind match the next month as "non-title". All that, to me, has always backed up the changed finish story, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Again, much of the info swapped on the 'net in the pre-Meltzer era was third-hand info from hotlines that just ripped off the WON or the Torch, so YMMV.

 

 

[JimmyHendricks 0]

I've learned to take anything that a FORMER WWE/F employee says with a grain of salt. To believe Ludvig Borga in an interview from Poland that HE HIMSELF (of course) was going to headline WrestleMania, well, blah.

 

I too have always wondered about what exactly was going down at the end of that Mankind/Shawn match. It just seemed odd to have Vince physically get up and lecture them on camera like that. I've always thought that they were running late, and he was telling them to go home NOW, because when you see them back in the ring 30 seconds later, the clock on the side of the arena says :48 after the hour, and don't most WWE/F PPV's end around :45 after? He probably knew they had 5 minutes or so planned after that table spot and was telling them to shorten it. Just my guess, though.

 

With all that said, I've always enjoyed Scott, so here's my contributions to the Q&A:

 

What moments in otherwise great/historic/memorable matches annoyed you? For example, Heenan yelling "Who's side is he on?" as Hogan comes down to turn heel at BATB '96 always makes me cringe. We had a thread about it here a year or so ago, and a good chunk said it was fine, because Heenan (character) always hated Hogan, but I see it as a big slip up on his part and diminished the shock of the heel turn, just a bit.

 

Do you think Ric Flair will honestly never wrestle again? What would cross the line for you to where he "violates" his retirement? A one time beatdown from Batista or someone as a "retired Hall of Famer" to further an angle (a la Arn getting beat down by Taker in 2002 before WM X-8) is okay, IMO. After the big send off at Mania and Raw I think it would be quite petty for him to turn into Terry Funk or Mick Foley and come back, even for a benefit match. But this IS Pro Wrestling, so how long before he's in a tag match with Shawn while wearing the new Ric Flair T-Shirt?

 

How much longer do you think HHH, Taker, Shawn, and other holdovers from the 90's will continue as in-ring performers? HHH will be 38 in July, Taker just turned 43, and Shawn will be 43 this summer as well. Can any of them put ego aside and walk away, or will Taker be celebrating 20-0 at WrestleMania in four years?

 

I'll post more if I think of them.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Considering Finlay could still go at like 48 years old, a 47 year old Taker celebrating 20-0 isn't out of realm of possibility.

[Enigma 0]

Wasn't there another claim about Test being booked to win the WWF Title from Triple H on a November 1999 Raw but they changed the finish right before the match and instead had Big Show in it at the PPV?

[Guest Teal-y Dan]

Though we're at a new address, we're still basically a continuation of Rantsylvania, which you founded. Do you keep in touch with your colleagues from Rantsylvania and TheSmarks? What have some of your understudies, like Don Becker, Sean Shannon, Jeremy Botter, Eric S., Scotsman, and other long-lost names gone on to do with their lives? Are they still writing about wrestling? Writing professionally? Still males? Still alive?

[Dandy 0]

Though we're at a new address, we're still basically a continuation of Rantsylvania, which you founded. Do you keep in touch with your colleagues from Rantsylvania and TheSmarks? What have some of your understudies, like Don Becker, Sean Shannon, Jeremy Botter, Eric S., Scotsman, and other long-lost names gone on to do with their lives? Are they still writing about wrestling? Writing professionally? Still males? Still alive?

[King Kamala 0]

In a similar vein, whatever happened to The Rick?

[Dandy 0]

Last I saw, he started onlineonslaught.com. I haven't been there in years, though.

Rick Scaia and Mike "Mikasa" Somethingorother.

 

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Okay, I am going to send off the questions today and will post the responses whenever I get them. Thanks to everyone for contributing. There was a bit of controversy over the selection of Scott as a guest, but all things considered, I'm happy with the results.