Shining the Spotlight 7.28.06: Scott Keith
Posted by Michael Weyer on 07.28.2006
A review of Wrestling's Made Men and my thoughts about its author, Scott Keith.
I'm going to be tackling someone rather big in the IWC this week. A man who in many ways was one of the cornerstones of wrestling rants and columns who's become a successful author. A man rather notorious for his opinions and cynical nature, so cynical in fact that he's pretty much given up on wrestling today.
A man named Scott Keith.
I was pleasantly surprised to see in my local bookstore a book I thought wasn't coming out for another month. Wrestling's Made Men: Breaking the WWE's Glass Ceiling (Citadel Press, $18.95) is the fourth book by Keith, following The Buzz on Pro Wrestling (2001), Tonight in This Very Ring: A Fan's History of Professional Wrestling (2003) and Wrestling's One Ring Circus: The Death of the World Wrestling Federation (2004). Keith has been a pretty big name in the IWC practically since it started and is considered a veteran wrestling writer. Sadly, he's recently turned off on wrestling except for the occasional PPV and his last several rants have been more cynical than usual, even saying he thinks WWE may be on the verge of ending.
I'm not going to be able to review this book without talking a lot about the author because so much of Keith's attitude comes in through his writings. Frankly, expecting an unbiased history of WWE from Scott Keith is like expecting an unbiased history of the Republican party by Michael Moore. Indeed, reading over his books, you can sense how his cynicism with WWF/E increased with each volume to the point where in Made Men's afterword (written earlier this year after much of the manuscript was submitted), he says he's got more important things to do than watch wrestling, which he says is a tragedy.
In case you haven't read his stuff (although if you're reading this, I assume you are), Keith is quite opinated and sarcastic in his writings especially when it comes to some of his favorite targets like HHH and Shawn Michaels. The structure of the book is different than his previous ones. Instead of breaking it up year by year or by seasons, this one is broken into 24 chapters, each covering a month from April 2003 to March 2005. Each chapter starts with a recap of the PPV of that month (although sadly Keith does not once again provide a list of all title changes). Another difference is that Keith doesn't populate it as much with his recaps of specific matches but concentrates more on angles and characters and such.
One problem is that the book comes so soon after James Guttman's very good World Wrestling Insanity which covers some of the same ground Keith does. In fact, Guttman went much deeper into stuff like the Diva Search and Randy Orton screwed by turning face which weakens reading Keith's words on the subject. That also matches talk on some gimmicks and characters like Heindrich and Visceria among others. Keith does spend a lot of time talking about "can't miss" prospects like Dupree, Eugene, Sean O'Haire, Hassan and others, showing it as a sign that WWE can't make newer stars work. He does explain Gene Snitsky as one of those guys who "gets over in such a weird-ass, backward way that you don't even know where to begin to explain it." I do think he gives Carlito some short shrift, starting with calling his father, Carlos Colon "semi-legendary." I'd drop the "semi" from that. He also says that Carlito was basically ripping off Scott Hall's Razor Ramon act which leads to a talk on plagiarism in wrestling. He also says WWE blew it with Eugene by having him be too much the goofball. I remember in recaps from 2004, Keith thought it obvious Eugene would turn heel and reveal he'd been faking his mental illness all along and I think he's still peeved WWE didn't go in that direction.
I'll start off with the positives on this book. The first sentence lets you know right off what we're in for: "Our story begins, as all great ones do, with a big, bald Jewish guy." Right off the bat, you know this is not going to be your typical wrestling book. Keith does make some fun observations here like how Kane and the Undertaker go through the exact same cycle every year when it's time for a push. Seriously, he's right, it's the same thing like clockwork every year. I also have to admit to laughing out loud at his great chapter ranting on the antics of Warrior and Randy Savage, especially the latter's rap album. Sadly, Keith does get some cheap shots at Tammy Sytch, continuing a trend that I feel is just not fair to the woman. One bit that's funnier than Keith intended is his talking about how See No Evil and The Marine were so bad, they were shelved and it's certain "neither will see the light of day."
A great highlight is a brief chapter in which Keith analyzes TNA and their progress so far. I have to admit that I admire how Keith greatly likes both AMW and AJ Styles, showing how he and I can still see eye to eye on things. He also talks about how TNA needs to succeed by firing most, if not all, non wrestlers, get the roster to a manageable size, dump the seventeen person booking committee, charge people to attend tapings and PPVs, tour and basically "actually act like a company that's a small wrestling promotion instead of behaving like WWE's little brother." Like me, Keith does seem hopeful of TNA's chances to give WWE some much needed competition as long as they don't fall on their own faces first.
As you can imagine, Keith spends a lot of time talking about JBL and his big push to the belt. The basic idea, that JBL should never have been a main eventer and fans wouldn't buy him that way has somewhat faded given how JBL really has gotten over as a big heel. Keith does point out that as much as he dislikes Bradshaw the person and JBL the character, he does feel people overreacted to JBL's infamous "Nazi bit" in Germany. Of course, he also says that Vince went too far punishing fans by giving JBL the long title run. He also puts the blame on Vince for mistaking fan's small cheers for Randy Orton as proof they wanted Orton to go face, which as we all know, wrecked what could have been a nice title reign.
One surprise is that Keith seems to be giving Shawn Michaels more of an even break. If you've read his pervious books, you'll know Keith is not what you'd call a fan of Shawn thanks to Montreal. He even says that Shawn's back injury in 1998 was pretty much karma for screwing Bret and he deserved to get beaten by a bunch of guys back in '95. However, Keith does admit that he's convinced Michaels is truly superhuman for wrestling like a man in his prime despite a steel pole in his back and it's hard to argue with Shawn's statements that being a born-again Christian has helped him.
The month-by-month structure of this book helps it, I believe, as he's able to concentrate on specific things instead of spreading it out. Keith throws in some spotlights like "Tough Enough" contestants and there's an interesting chapter where he looks at the Rock's movie career which comes a bit after his very nice analysis of how the Rock/Goldberg feud didn't exactly live up to the hype due to the Rock's comedy antics instead of really selling Goldberg as a killer opponent. It's interesting to see this given Keith's long time rooting of the Rock.
Keith does put in a few match reviews. Indeed, he even reposts his entire review of Vengeance '05 and he does some great commentaries on Wrestlemania XX and XXI. He waits until the WMXX review to mention the double leaving of Brock and Goldberg, citing their match as "fascinating to watch as a social experiment." I think this works better than the previous books where he'd just put in a review at any time, sometimes in their original formats so they'd sometimes contrast his changed opinions of workers. Also, once again, he'll have a color photo spread of various wrestlers, often with comments on them that touch on things he fails to expand on in the book like Christian failing to click as a main-eventer despite his newfound popularity.
Well, now that the positives are out of the way, it's time to get to the negatives. And with Keith, the big problem is just that, that he tends to be a negative and cynical person. He even admits it and it comes out in this writing. By the end of the book, you just get the feeling that Keith thinks WWE is on its way to inevitable destruction and it's all Vince and HHH's fault for not listening to the fans. And by "the fans" Keith often means himself.
That has always been the problem with Keith's books from the start. It's not just that he's opinionated, I can handle that. You can't be a member of the IWC without having opinions. I have mine but I do my best to back them up with fact and while I hope my opinions are shared by others, I don't (or at least I don't believe I do) believe that I speak for every fan. Keith however, gives just that impression, that he is right on every subject, that his version of events is just what happened, no one else's. I'd like to think it's not a conscious decision but considering Keith once described RVD as "the only guy more self-centered than me," you have to recognize his ego is pretty large.
If Keith was doing just that, his own opinions, that'd be something. But he labels his books as "histories" of WWF/E and that's where the problem comes in. Too often, Keith will present his opinions as absolute fact, telling people "truths" that are quite often based on second-hand accounts and wild stories. The best example is his statement of a 1986 Bruiser Brody/Leg Luger match. From what I've heard from several people who were actually there, Brody just refused to sell and Luger walked out in disgust. But Keith paints it as one of the true "shoots" of wrestling, that Brody came to the ring with fingers ready for blading and Luger ran off in fear. He also talks about how Bob Backlund was "monster over" as a heel in 1994 which shows Keith is going by a different criteria of "monster over" than most of the fan base.
It just seems really hypocritical to me that Keith will blast Vince for rewriting wrestling history and yet he does the same thing quite often. In fact, he'll even rewrite his own histories such as when in The Buzz he'll say WWF failed to make Rick Rude a believable main-eventer but in Tonight, Rude is suddenly said as getting over. And then there are the simple errors he'll make such as in the beginning of Tonight where he talks about the NWA forming in 1964 and that Buddy Rogers beat Lou Thesz for the NWA title. A simple ten second search on Wikipedia is enough to show you how wrong that is. Small errors like this can dot his works which weakens his arguments.
I do believe that his Canadian background makes Keith more than slightly prejudiced toward wrestlers from that country. To be fair, he doesn't go so far as give four-star rankings to Dino Bravo matches and he is dead on calling Trish possibly the greatest female wrestler of her generation but other times, his nationalism influences his writings too much. To him, Bret is truly a national icon and deserved to be champ almost all the time. Hell, he even compares WWF in '95 to "King Lear," with Bret as the noble son and Kevin Nash and Michaels the children making false claims of love to King Vince. Look, I like Bret too and respect the hell out of him but Keith is truly in the camp that Montreal was a crime against the entire Canadian population. That love also extends to Benoit and Jericho as Keith makes it sound like everyone wanted them to be champs in 2000 when most everyone else was behind Rock, HHH and Angle. Yes, I agree that Benoit and Jericho both deserved a bit more in main-event pushes the last few years but Keith just makes it sound like it was a travesty for every fan that it never happened.
The biggest "blind love" aspect has got to be Keith's infatuation with Owen Hart. I miss the guy too but Keith goes overboard, claiming to have seen every one of Owen's matches, which is impossible. Even if he's just talking TV matches, it's a bit much. He cites his "classic" match against Curt Henning at Wrestlemania V which is the first time I've heard that 5-minute quickie referred to as a classic. In Tonight, he makes a big deal detailing the entire "DX impersonates the Nation" bit but leaves out the best part was Jason Sensation's dead-on impression of Owen that had everyone howling. As I mentioned in a column a few weeks back, Keith constantly blasts the Owen tribute show on RAW, giving the idea that he, a man who never met Owen, knows better how to mourn him than the people who worked with him every day. Keith may present his books as histories but when he openly writes that "I hope there is an afterlife and I hope Vince McMahon burns in Hell forever for taking Owen Hart away from me and everyone else who counted himself as a true fan" he really undermines his standing. Keith still makes it sound like Vince knew for a fact Owen was going to die and did nothing to stop it. If you're read JP Prag's great "In Defense Of…" on Owen a few months back, you'll see that Owen himself didn't take many of the safety precautions he should have and it was not Vince's fault. But don't try getting Keith to buy that. Again, I wonder if that's the reason Keith hasn't reviewed the Bret DVD, that he can't accept Bret putting segments of the RAW tribute on the disc and saying he never blamed Vince for Owen.
Another problem with Keith is that he's a true workrate freak. Now, I don't really discourage that per se but it also means he can only accept wrestling matches that have actual wrestling. He never gave ECW a fair shake, often dismissing it as "violent crap," and running down workers and attitudes. I do put a bit of blame on him for popularizing the star ratings system for matches which has been so often abused, especially by Keith. I've seen him give two star sniffs to matches most others call great because he deconstructs every move and complains that some matches just lack the right psychology and push. This also pertains to one of his most famous pans, in which he gave the Mankind/Undertaker "Hell in the Cell" match at King of the Ring only one star. Keith's argument is that there was no build to the drops Foley took and little real action in between bumps. Well, gee, I think we can excuse Foley for not engaging in grapple holds when he was, you know, fighting to stay conscious through massive pain. True, there might have been better wrestling matches that year but when it comes to the most memorable match of 1998, HITC is the one most will remember.
There's also the problem of the hypocrisy Keith will often show. While discussing the build up to Montreal in Tonight, he talks about Shawn saying Bret might jump to WCW with the belt and then states "Shawn's place as a WWF employee was not to go around questioning every booking decision but rather to do his job to the best of his ability. And in this case, his job probably should have been a ‘job,' if you will." Well, going by that logic, shouldn't it have been Bret's place as an employee to follow the wishes of his owner and drop the title instead of risking hurting the WWF at such a critical time? Oh, but of course, Bret is a national hero and the owner of the company that made him a star should have bowed to all his wishes or at least that's how it works in Keith's world.
The same talk applies to how Keith will go on (and on and on and on…) about HHH's rampant steroid use and yet brushes over Brian Pillman's death as "simple heart failure." Yeah, heart failure brought about by years of abusing drugs a hell of a lot worse than steroids. HHH is really one of Keith's favorite targets, as he spends the vast majority of One Ring Circus making it sound like HHH had all of WWE creative, not to mention Vince himself, under his thumb to keep himself on top. He'll also mention how huge a mark he was for Brock Lesner until Brock "got a swelled head that turned him into a big jerk." And yet he counts himself as a huge fan of a bitter man who presents himself as the Michael Jordan of Canada. To Kieth, HHH is proof of what he says in all his books are the three key ways to make sure you get over in WWE: Be tall, be muscular and have a full head of hair. Of course, one can argue that Stone Cold is proof that theory doesn't quite work but then Keith is quick to harp on the logic of WWE's writers yet miss the problems in his own.
And quickly on the drug issue, in the afterword, Keith notes how right after the wellness plan was created, Vince appeared on magazine covers flaunting his physique (which Keith has long hinted is steroid built) and sarcastically says "I know I for one slept better knowing Vince was on the case preventing further tragedies from drugs." Given how Vince has been willing to rewrite storylines and shift major shows at the last minute rather than have the workers risk their health, this attitude comes off as just cheap Vince bashing.
Keith complains quite a bit about how WWE has turned more "soap operarish" in the last few years over the actual action. While you can argue he has a good point in some regards, the fact is that the sport has changed in the last several years and for Vince to survive, he has to work with those new audience expectations. Yet, Keith will sound like he prefers the old style NWA where it was just matches instead of some character working stuff. A running theme in his books is how WWE fails to make new stars to take over after Austin, Rock and HHH yet he continues to push Benoit and Jericho, who aren't exactly rookies. And when someone does break out like Cena, Keith will say they're not ready for it because he doesn't like them. So many times, Keith sounds like the guy at the barber store who's never played a game of football in his life but says he knows how to run and coach a team better than the ones in charge. That's fine for writing a column but when selling a book to people not as familiar with wrestling's inside moves, it's a disservice both to readers and the sport.
I don't want to trash Keith, I really don't. I have to admit he was an influence to me when I had dreams of being an online columnist as in his prime, he was really on the ball. If you can track it down, his rant on WCW's bumbling in 1993 is still quite excellent. Ditto for his column when WCW hired Russo and Keith was one of the first to say it was going to be a huge mistake for the company, which he was dead on about. And as noted, he does make some good points in these books. A highlight of One Ring Circus was his examining what made the nWo work in 1996 and why it couldn't in 2002. Keith really was a great guy to read and I looked forward to his take on the sport. Plus he's the only man on Earth who's a bigger Ricky Steamboat mark than I am so he's obviously got some good taste.
The problem, I believe, is that sometime around 2001, Keith got it into his head that he truly spoke for the vast majority of fans and WWF/E would do much better if they listened to him. His writings got more snarky, more cynical as he seemed to go out of his way to find something to bitch about. True, WWE did no favors with how bad they were in 2002 but Keith made it sound so much worse and that came off in his works. So many times, you'll read his words and can almost feel his smug "I know so much more than you do about this business so this opinion counts more" attitude, which weakens what he's trying to say. His books can be so much better if he'd take less time making cheap shots at HHH, Vince, Big Show and Cena and less time harping on the awesomeness of Benoit, Guererro and Angle and really analyze the business.
For all his talk, Keith really has no ties to the wrestling industry and so often he'll be reporting backstage rumors and innuendo as fact. For example, he's long stated that Vader was to beat Michaels for the WWF title in 1996 but so many versions since have it that Vader was never even asked. Larry Czonka just reviewed the nice book Between the Ropes where the authors talk quite a lot with those in the wrestling business and thus have real facts to back up their statements. It also shows that you can write a history of WWE the last few years without being negative or resorting to name calling. I know Keith likes to put his style and opinions in but he's also presenting this as histories of what happened in the last few years and he can't do both. As I mentioned earlier, Keith is really no better than Vince, putting out his own version of events and calling it what really happened.
Made Men's main book concludes with an epilogue talking about the Matt Hardy/Edge/Lita triangle and how it got Keith interested in wrestling again. That however, is followed by his afterword where he says he turned off on wrestling after Jim Ross was replace by Joey Styles, who Keith describes as "totally lacking in his own opinions and will mindless recite anything fed into his earpiece and is thus helpless without it." Anyone who's seen Styles in his ECW prime knows how totally off that idea is and once again shows Keith's "I say it's true so it's true" mentality that dominates his words.
I have to say that if you're a fan of Keith, Made Men will be a good buy. And it is better than his last book due to its structure. But I see it as rather sad that someone who was once so much in love of this sport has turned bitter and away from it. Worse, that he thinks it's the sport that betrayed him somehow and that it's WWE to blame for how he feels. The sport didn't change as much as Keith's attitude did. I've been a fan for twenty years, in good times and bad and I'm still pretty high for it. Maybe I'm just a less cynical person or maybe I'm more understanding. Whatever else, I do my best to try not to sound like I'm talking down to people. I try to take into account others will not share my opinions and I try to back my opinions up with real facts, not rumors. Keith, however, doesn't seem to think the same.
To me, Keith has joined that group of people I find exceptionally annoying, a group that includes Bill O'Reilly, Michael Moore, Bill Maher and Harry Knowles. Not only does he think he's a lot smarter about a subject than he really is, he vastly overestimates the worth of his own words. I'd like to remember the Scott Keith of 1998-2000 who'd rave about WWF PPV's while ranting on the idiocies of WCW. It's sad to see him giving up on a sport he once really loved but perhaps it's needed for him to get perspective on his life. With all respect, Scott, you are not the last word on wrestling, you never were. The version he paints of WWE is just as skewered, if in the opposite direction, than the one Vince will paint for himself. Scott Keith, when it comes down to it, is like me, a man sharing his opinions. The problem is that his opinions will be seen by those not as knowledgeable about the sport as what really happened and their view of wrestling will be in Keith's cynical, Canada-biased, anti-HHH vision. And that is something that can hurt the future of this sport and the IWC, two things that Scott Keith once loved and respected with a passion. And that is a true tragedy.
I guess that wraps it up for now. Next week I'll examine tag teams with the book Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame: The Tag Teams and the current tag scene.
And don't forget….
"You think you've forgotten how to kill a giant snake and then it all comes back to you."
