Scott Keith Q & A

[Guest]

Big, BIG thanks to Cheech for sending the questions to SK and getting the answers. The answers are in bold, the questions are in...red.

 

It's pretty epic. I'll send you what I've got so far, but there's still tons to come on the book and steroids and stuff.

The Softball Questions

CWM asks: "How did he get started reviewing stuff?"

 

I started way back in 1993, when I was a 19 year old computing science student at the University of Alberta. Although since then I have realized what a waste of my time and scholarships that path was, using Unix boxes on a daily basis allowed me unlimited access to this thing called "the internet". Stop me if I'm going too fast for everyone here. Back then, there was no web to surf, as everything was confined to text-based applications like e-mail and the newsgroups. In particular, I was using old-school Unix reader RN to see what was available to discuss with nerds around the world, and typed in "wrestling" on a whim. This produced the group "rec.sport.pro-wrestling", or RSPW as it is generally more popularly (or derisively, depending on who's saying it) known. As someone who had never had exposure to the "smart" aspect of wrestling outside of say, PWI Weekly in the late 80s, this blew my mind. After years of reading kayfabed publications, here was a large group of people openly discussing wrestling as a worked artform instead of a quasi-sport.

 

And since I'm never short of opinions, I jumped right into the pool by doing a god-awful review of Wrestlemania 9 and proceeding from there. However, that was only small stuff compared to 1996, when I started doing freeform columns that I dubbed "rants", and then started reviewing older shows, which I dubbed "retro rants". I started a small website on Geocities (the modestly titled "Scott's Rant Archives") to house my growing collection of stuff, and it became something of a cult hit over the next couple of years. In 1998, longtime reader Justin Shapiro suggested the name "Rantsylvania" in a chat session, which gave me a catchier name for the page, and then in 1999 Sean Shannon convinced me to join the dot.com world, and the rest is history.

 

CWM asks: "Who is the best person to get tapes/dvd's from?"

These days, your best bets are just to buy the real DVDs from retailers like Amazon or Highspots, or watch matches on sites like YouTube. I generally don't deal in that world anymore, and haven't done so since, oh, 2001, because I get enough people sending me stuff to review where I don't need to go out of my way to get things. I usually just recommend the guys at www.deathvalleydriver.com because they're the experts and they're reputable, but other than that I wouldn't even know.

 

CWM asks: "What company's does he still follow?"

 

I usually half-heartedly read results for RAW and Smackdown when I get around to it and I have a vague awareness of TNA still existing, but other than that I don't follow any promotion on an ongoing basis at this point. WWE 24/7 is all the wrestling I need forever, now.

 

boobshaw asks: "If you were offered a job on the creative team at WWE or TNA would you accept? Why or why not?"

 

The WWE? No, absolutely not. Too much paranoia, too much politics, plus I'm missing about 100 of the qualifications they want in a writer. However, I would take a job with the WWE Home Video division in a heartbeat. I've lobbied in my rants several times to be the guy who writes the pithy little pop-up trivia on 24/7 programming, for instance. TNA, maybe. As long it was just writing the backstage joke segments. Honestly, my talents as a writer don't lend themselves to booking. That takes a different type of creativity than I possess.

 

Smues asks: "When did you start losing interest in the WWE?"

 

Quite a while ago, actually. If you want to pinpoint the one moment when I stopped unconditionally loving the business, it would be May of 1999, for obvious reasons. More generally, I started losing interest at the end of 2001, when it was apparent they had botched the Invasion angle and there wasn't going to be any fix. I kind of hung on with the RAW rants through the horrifyingly bad period with HHH on top and then 2004 kind of resparked things for me with the Benoit title reign.

 

However, specifically the recent string of depressing deaths of some of my favorite guys, in particular Eddie Guerrero after he got his life back together again, has pretty much left me wanting to just reminisce on the good times via 24/7 rather than getting attached to anyone else who'll just let me down again.

 

Smues asks: "Do you give a crap at all about TNA?"

 

Not a bit. They had their chance to hook me in 2007 with the Joe-Angle matches and they blew it, so I'm done with them. The problem was that I was essentially being asked to take a chance on their PPVs each time out, and I just can't afford to drop $40 on a show where I never know if I'm going to get a classic or a 1999-era WCW show. And the TV is basically unwatchable all the times I've checked it out.

 

Smues asks: "What are the origins of BONZO GONZO?"

 

What, like secret comic book origins?

 

Anyway, it comes from the Coliseum Video about the history of the WWF tag team championship, as the announcers for a Garea/Martel v. Samoans title change were particularly lame even by the standards of the time.

Here's the historic first appearance of the term…

 

- The Wild Samoans v. Tony Garea & Rick Martel. Well, Garea's back again, and it's November 8/80, so we've skipped over Bob Backlund & Pedro Morales winning the tag titles at Shea Stadium and then giving them up the next night and moved on to the next "real" title change. Interestingly, I was checking the new WWF title history site www.wwftitlehistory.com) to verify that they still recognize that change (they do), and discovered that the "official" company line now traces the WWF tag titles not only back to the traditionally accepted beginning with Luke Graham & Tarzan Tyler winning a "tournament" in 1971, but all the way back to 1957 with the US tag titles held by Luke & Eddie Graham. Of course, the WWF didn't even exist until the 60s, but I appreciate the effort there. Anyway, Martel & Garea (who were getting the Hardy Boy reaction back then) work Afa's arm to start, and that goes on for a while. In fact, they clip to longer into an armbar, until Garea gets tossed and destroyed by Sika on the floor. Back in, Afa goes with the trusty Vulcan nerve-pinch, but Garea gets a crossbody for two. The Samoans choke him down with a ring rope, and the announcers note that the referee is "very perturbed" about that happening. You'd think he'd just disqualify them, but maybe he has to get more perturbed or something. Afa goes back to the nervehold, perturbing the fans. They collide for a double-KO, hot tag Martel. He goes crazy, and a pier-six erupts. Double monkeyflip as the colorman notes that the match is now, and I'm not making this up, "bonzo-gonzo". I'm going to try and work that one into every rant from now on, so help me god. Afa collides with Garea, and we have a double-pin, but Martel is legal and gets the winning pin at 7:00. I cannot in good conscience give a point to any match where "bonzo gonzo" is used to describe it. 3 for 8.

 

General Wrestling Questions

 

nl5xsk1 asks: "Why didn't Vince ever create a legit Russian threat for Hulk Hogan to vanquish to prove that he's the Real American Hero? He could have pilfered Nikita Koloff, created his own using some steroid addled bald guy, or (and preferably) kept Barry Darsow in the "Krusher Kruschev" personality.

 

For how big of a threat "Communism" was in the 1980s, limiting the Russian threat to Volkoff & Zhukov was weak."

Communism is STILL a threat, and anyone who says differently is a pinko Commie! Hmm, maybe I've been watching too many Magnum TA interviews lately. At any rate, Nikita has said more than once that Vince was attempting to steal him away in 1986 and give him the title shot at Wrestlemania 2, but he suspected that he'd just get screwed over in the end and thus he didn't jump. I maintain that it could have been huge, with Ivan Koloff trying to avenge his lost title by bringing in his nephew…can you IMAGINE the house that Hulk Hogan & Bruno Sammartino v. Ivan & Nikita Koloff at MSG in 1986 would have drawn? They could have filled Shea Stadium with that one. But yeah, Vince really did drop the ball on the Evil Russian front.

909 asks: "Ok, outside of the Flair/Steamboat series, what's the best match he's ever seen?"

 

There's so many qualifications you have to add here that I don't know how much the answer is going to be worth, but in a world without Flair v. Steamboat it's likely that Savage v. Steamboat from Wrestlemania III would have reigned as my favorite until 1997, at which point Bret Hart v. Steve Austin from Wrestlemania XIII would have dethroned it.

 

megaadvice asks: "How far do you agree or disagree with the statement that, considering all the politics/big egos/the downturn in the wrestling business which saw both WCW and ECW going out of business plus numerous other difficult factors, the WWE has done a brilliant job in the last 6 years and has managed to keep the wrestling business alive and well?"

 

Disagree. It's mainly inertia at this point, as they've had no real competition in years and are going to be profitable for a very long time assuming Vince doesn't do anything stupid like another go at the XFL or bankrolling his own movies or whatever. They have their fanbase who watches them no matter what out of habit, and they've done little to bring in lost fans or fans of competing genres like UFC.

 

Much of the continued success is due to the expansion of the international market, a group that had very limited exposure to the product before the past decade or so, whereas buyrates and ratings in the North American market have either remained stagnant or declined sharply (as in Canada in particular).

 

Broward83 asks: "Will there ever truly be a viable 2nd promotion to the WWE? RoH is getting on PPV, all be it sporadically. TNA has seemingly destroyed all of the good will they garnered with their recent string of bad booking."

 

I think it's fair to say that TNA can always be considered a possibility to compete as long as there's people willing to bankroll it, because you just never know what is going to take off next.

 

Broward83 asks: "Who would be better to lead the WWE after Vince steps down? Shane or Steph?"

 

HHH, because that's who's going to be running it. And Vince won't ever "step down", any more than his father before him did, he'll either die or have the promotion ripped from his hands. Or maybe both.

 

Hawk 34 asks: "Which young performer (in age or exposure) do you feel offers the most for the WWE in the long run? Mr. Kennedy, MVP, CM Punk, Elijah Burke, DH Smith or other?"

 

I still don't get the whole MVP thing. I don't find it a compelling character and I don't think he's got a great look or anything. Kennedy is all catchphrase and no meat in the ring as of yet. Punk is a guy who's going to talk himself out of a job at some point, I think, so I hope he's saving his money. I haven't seen more than about 2 matches with Burke so I can't comment there. Smith is a hell of a nice kid and I wish him well, but the more you read about the family history the more you know what a bad road he's on already. All that being said, it's impossible to play this game because you just never know when a John Cena is going to pop up out of developmental and change the rules.[/size][/font]

 

Discuss. If more are sent as the top indicates, we'll call the next thread part 2.

[haVoc 0]

Broward83 asks: "Who would be better to lead the WWE after Vince steps down? Shane or Steph?"

 

HHH, because that's who's going to be running it. And Vince won't ever "step down", any more than his father before him did, he'll either die or have the promotion ripped from his hands. Or maybe both.

 

I thought Vince already had control when his father died? Actually, how did Vince Sr. die?

 

[CanadianChris 0]

Broward83 asks: "Who would be better to lead the WWE after Vince steps down? Shane or Steph?"

 

HHH, because that's who's going to be running it. And Vince won't ever "step down", any more than his father before him did, he'll either die or have the promotion ripped from his hands. Or maybe both.

 

I thought Vince already had control when his father died? Actually, how did Vince Sr. die?

He got cancer and died less than a year after selling to Vince Jr.

[JoeDirt 0]

Cool stuff. Thanks for posting.

[JHawk 0]

Broward83 asks: "Who would be better to lead the WWE after Vince steps down? Shane or Steph?"

 

HHH, because that's who's going to be running it. And Vince won't ever "step down", any more than his father before him did, he'll either die or have the promotion ripped from his hands. Or maybe both.

 

I thought Vince already had control when his father died? Actually, how did Vince Sr. die?

He got cancer and died less than a year after selling to Vince Jr.

And he still made some decisions even near the end, including arranging for J.J. Dillon's lone MSG appearance in April 1984, one month before his passing.

[Hasbeen2 0]

it's impossible to play this game because you just never know when a John Cena is going to pop up out of developmental and change the rules

 

Good point, even though it seems obvious you sometimes forget. That's one reason I still watch even when it's useless Diva garbage or anything I don't like, who could have thought Santino could be entertaining. I was just looking at some old PWI top 500 lists and in 2001 Batista, Cena, Hernandez, Samoa Joe, Abyss were all in the lower half. Harry Smith, Tomko, Ray Gordy are among those in the 2006 list in the lower half, maybe in a few years they'll be headlining in the WWE.