Shining the Spotlight: Tag Team Goodness
Posted by Michael Weyer on 08.04.2006
A review of The Wrestling Hall of Fame: The Tag Teams and a look at the tag scene today. Plus, reader mailbag with reactions to my Scott Keith column.
Boy, you write one bit on a big guy in the IWC and the mailbag just fills on up. I'll be touching on the comments from readers down below. For those wondering, I did attempt to send a copy of the column to Scott Keith himself but it came back "address unknown" for some reason. However, I saw on his blog (http://rspwfaq.livejournal.com/) Keith did make a link to my review with the comment "Interesting review, in that positives are about the book and the negatives are focused on stuff that's in my previous books." Well, I did point out a few negatives in the new book too. I rather wished he'd done more detail as I'm truly interested in his take on my feelings. Feel free to check the link to read the comments from others.
Well, onto another book, this one not eliciting quite as many feelings but one I feel has been rather unfairly overlooked. The Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame: The Tag Teams (ECW Press, $18.95) was published last year. It was published last year and I'm rather surprised there haven't been more reviews of it as it's a quite excellent book that achieves the rare feat of managing to present real facts on the business without a huge emphasis on personal opinions.
The cover gets you attention with a photo of a scaffold match between the Rock n Roll Express and the Midnight Express with Bobby Eaton hanging from the bottom of the scaffold. Eaton comments on that in his foreword, along with his beliefs that tag team wrestling has become a lost art. That is a statement I can definitely get behind on. I figure it was around 1996 that tag team wrestling really went downhill. Sure, there had been a slow slide but for some reason it was about that time that tag team divisions became sparse and stagnant, too often filled with ad hoc teams. I can't quite explain why, it just happened and that's a shame for the sport.
The book begins with a brief history of tag team wrestling and its origins. As with so much of early wrestling history, there are tall tales of tag team matches taking place around 1900 but the first documented match took place in Houston in 1936 and spread out from there (although they would be referred to as "relays" for a while. By the 1940's, tag titles had been created but it was the advent of television that caused it to really take off as it made wrestling look even more exciting. There's some fun stuff on how various territories used it in different ways. Verne Gagne and Vince McMahon Sr. both emphasized tag teams in their promotions; Canada would have a major tournament that gave tag wrestling credibility; on the other hand, St. Louis and other Southern promoters thought tag wrestling wasn't "old school" enough and placed such matches low on cards.
The intro talks about how tag wrestling hit a decline in the ‘70s but found a renaissance in the 1980's, thanks to teams like the Road Warriors, the British Bulldogs, The Rock n Roll and Midnight Expresses and more. There's a talk about the types of teams, from gimmicks (Road Warriors), brothers (whether really related like the Von Erichs or not like Edge & Christian) to teams made up of two stars trying to overcome weaknesses as singles wrestlers (Rock n Roll Express, James Gang).
From there, we touch upon the main part of the book, which is their listing of the 20 best tag teams of all time. As with all such "best of" lists in wrestling, there will be some debate and I'm sure there's no one who will be absolutely satisfied with it. Oliver & Johnson admit this in the intro for the list. However, I have to admit that it's great that unlike a lot of lists (such as the one that 411mania did not that long ago) this list doesn't just go back 20 years but really delves deep into history, which is something I greatly enjoyed. Indeed, of the 20 teams, only six were formed after the ‘70's.
That's proven by the fact that their number one pick is the Fabulous Kangaroos, who made tag team wrestling an international phenomenon with a 20 year reign traveling the world and taking on all comers. The Road Warriors come in at two with how they changed wrestling with their attire, makeup, refusal to sell and overall sheer aggressiveness that signified wrestling the in 1980's would be a lot different. The British Bulldogs are next with their amazing technical skill, made more impressive by the fact that they competed in a promotion where sheer size and power were emphasized.
The detail that is put into each entry makes the book great. Rather than putting in their own feelings or relying on second-hand talk, the authors insert comments from interviews with members of the team, opponents, managers and friends to make each one come alive. It's terrific to see so much research and care put into a wrestling book instead of just slapping down random facts and rushing it out. As a history buff, I find it especially good, particularly as it gives a huge spotlight to the too-often ignored state of wrestling in the 1940's—70's. Honestly, practically every wrestling book out there acts as if the sport only came alive in the ‘80's but one can argue it was even more popular in the middle part of the century.
It's striking to read of teams who have gimmicks that would be pretty daring for today, let along their own time. Like the Von Brauners, two Germans with Nazi-like regalia whose manager, "Gentleman" Saul Weingeroff, was a Jew. Or the Red Devils, The Great Goliath and Black Gordman, who were introduced to the largely minority crowd in Los Angeles as being from Mexico, only to get on the mic and declare they were from New Mexico "not that stinking country to the south." That they were both legitimately Mexican made it all the more striking and added to their heat. Or the Interns, a pair of masked men in medical garb who literally needed to be escorted out of rings in a police van as protection from irate fans. It's not just two-man teams either as the top 20 also includes the Fabulous Freebirds and the Dusek Riot Squad.
I won't spoil the rest of the list (hey, have to give you more incentive to buy the book, right?) but the authors do throw in an additional five teams. The rest of the book is just as amazingly detailed, breaking it up into various eras. There's "The Golden Age" (1950's to mid-‘60's) where tag wrestling really took off in the old territorial days. There's mentions of classic teams long forgotten like the Golden Grahams, the Atomic Redheads and Antonio Roca & Miguel Perez, who may have the best win-loss record of any tag team in history. Besides detailing the teams, the book also sheds wonderful light on how wrestling promotions worked at the mid-point of the century, a far cry from the tighter, more corporate promotions of the last decade.
"The Brothers" looks at true brother tag teams over the years like the Briscos, the Rougeaus, the Funks and of course the von Erichs. "The Territorial Era" (mid-‘60's to mid ‘80's) looks at the big teams during a key time of transition for the sport. Many are familiar (The Outlaws, the Fabulous Ones, Ted DiBiase & Steve Williams) and many are not (the Dalton Gang, Bob Giegel & Bob Brown, The Mysterious Medics) but all are given the same spotlight and space. "The Evil Foreigners" looks at teams like Mr. Fuji & Professor Tanaka, the Wild Samoans and the Mongols. It's amusing to see them note how many of them were from nowhere near the countries they claimed to hail from. Perhaps the most intriguing entry here is on the Sheepherders, who are known today as the comedic goofballs the Bushwhackers. I'm sure more than a few fans will be surprised to find that these jokers were once one of the most brutal and feared teams around.
Finally, there's "The National Era" (mid-80's to present) examining teams like Harlem Heat, the Hart Foundation, Demolition, the Steiners, the Nasty Boys, Hardyz, Dudley Boys and the rest who formed the last gasp of the tag team art. Also mixed in throughout the book are quick segues looking at various events or traits in tag teams. For the latter, there's stuff like father-son teams, the Madison Square Garden riot of 1957 and the Tupelo Concession Stand Brawl that really set the stage for what would become hardcore wrestling. Some of these entries are interesting. For example one labeled "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" looks at the various teams that copied the Fabulous Ones and Rock n Roll Express. There's a great spotlight on Bearcat Brown who was the first big black star in the South and a detailing of the epic NWA tag title feud between Sgt Slaughter & Don Kernodle and Ricky Steamboat & Jay Youngblood. Note to WWE: Give us a Ricky Steamboat DVD so we can all enjoy those classic battles.
The book was published last year so there's no entries for teams like MNM or AMW. Also, it only concentrates on North American teams so those expecting word on tandems from Japan or Mexico are out of luck (which is a shame as that would make for more awesome entries). However, Oliver and Johnson must be credited for making the reader truly care about every team they mention. The research is impeccable with listings of the years they debuted, formed, broke up and retired/died. The key is the interviews and comments from, if not the actual team members, those who knew them well. There's also a good selection of photographs showing them in their prime and, in a few cases, today as well. Overall, The Tag Teams is an incredibly complex and detailed look at not just a form of wrestling but also a showcase of how much the business has changed over the last half century. It's a true hidden gem for any wrestling library and is recommended wholeheartedly.
I would hope that with the vast library at their feet, WWE would come up with the idea of putting out a DVD (or two) focusing on tag teams. Sure, the Road Warriors had one, but then they're one team who deserves their own showcase. Still, there are slews of amazing teams of the past who deserve to be reintroduced to a new generation of fans. Particularly given how weak today's tag teams are.
Let's face it, the WWE tag scene has been pitiful for so long, it's no longer funny. RAW tag title reigns last for months at a time, not because of the strength of the champions but because there's really no one for them to fight. There have been some bright teams here and there. Kane and Big Show were a nice throwback to the "giant champions" idea that doesn't pop up as much as you might think. Like many, I thought the Spirit Squad was incredibly dumb but I think they've actually improved since they became champs and I like the "any two can defend" gimmick. It's a shame that WWE is reportedly going to break them up as I think they can actually last a bit longer.
Smackdown has been hurting as the single best team WWE has had in years, MNM, have split. However, having Kendrick and London as the champs may signal some hope. The two have formed a really good team, mixing together well with their cruiserweight styles so their matches have a great old-style feel to them. Of course, their challengers are limited. Jamie Noble and Kid Kash seemed to be pushing toward contention and I really thought they'd be given the belts at GAB. However, Kash's being forced off the road means that the only other option is Gymini. While their in-ring work has been okay, the idea of the Shane Twins as world champs is a bit much. I really think WWE needs to put a call into OVW or Deep South to get some more teams in there. That or do something that works better which is take two floundering singles guys, put them together and see if they work. It's amazing how many great teams have been formed that way.
Over at TNA, the scene is much better, thanks to the fact they have arguably the best team in wrestling today, America's Most Wanted. One comment Scott Keith made in his new book that I agree wholeheartedly with is his surprise that WWE didn't try to snatch AMW up when they had the chance. Chris Harris and James Storm gelled so well that on their very first pairing, TNA decided to make them a team and that has paid dividends. They're a really old-school team with great teamwork and selling and their hell turn gave them a new killer instinct and edge. The Naturals are actually the flip side of that, good as a heel team but really took off after becoming babyface tag champs in 2005. They really get themselves fired up and bring a great energy to their matches and I'm glad TNA is giving them a new push.
Of course, you have to talk about the current NWA tag champs. Like Abyss and James Mitchell, it's amazing no one's thought about putting AJ Styles and Christopher Daniels together before as they've become the perfect pairing. I was a tad dubious at first, thanks to the great rivalry they've had from 2005 to earlier this year over the X Division title. Plus, I always thought Daniels was too good a heel to turn face. But they've more than proven me wrong as partners. It shouldn't be surprising they gel so well. When you fight a guy in a dozen or so classic matches over a year you get to know him well and it shows in their ring work. They know how the other thinks, how to set things up, how to double-team and hit the guy at the right time. The key is that they are both unbelievably awesome wrestlers, skilled in technical battles and ariel maneuvers that put a lot of cruiserweights to shame. They've shown their stuff in their matches with AMW and I hope TNA lets them keep the belts for a while as any team that goes against them will look like a million bucks. Now all they have to do is get themselves a cool name (Phenomenangels? Something that really sells them as a team).
The rest of the tag roster in TNA is a bit so-so, particularly after Team Canada's break-up. The James Gang and Team 3D are pretty much doing the same stuff they were doing in 1998 (especially James Gang). I'm still not quite sold on LAX although they do have some potential. Diamonds in the Rough are pretty much forced jobbers, which is a shame as Skipper and Young really can step up to the plate if given the chance. Perhaps the reteaming of Matt Bentley and Frankie Kazarian will lead to some good matches. Still, compared to WWE, TNA's tag roster is practically overflowing.
It's a real shame that tag wrestling has sagged like this. It was always cool to watch two great teams go at it and see the tag titles defended against a wide range of challengers. Tag team feuds were hotter than singles ones due to more people involved and there was the simple idea of two men trying to succeed together rather than take their chances on their own. However, as Oliver and Johnson pointed out, tag team wrestling did hit a slump in the ‘70's which ended up leading to a huge revival in the 1980's. So who knows? The next Golden Age of tag teams may be right around the corner, which would be the best benefit this sport has had in a while.
Well, last couple of columns have gotten some readers going so time to crack open the mailbag. First ones are on my column about RVD and self-destructing careers. First, Gareth Smith shares the following:
Don't want to criticize mate, your columns pretty good ‘n all, I just want to pull you up on a couple of things.
Firstly, the idea that a "pot habit" is destructive in the same way as hard drugs (heroin, crack) prescription painkillers, alcohol or even gambling is just laughable. Apart from anything else it isn't physically addictive, and it has no physical side affects. Of course abusing it isn't good for you mentally (but then the same is true of cheeseburgers – see morgan spurlock) and it can be habit forming. But to destroy your life with weed you've got to be pretty low to start with. RVD's going to be fine, I mean after all really the only crime he has committed is violating US law.
However my main point of contention is this. Forgive me for prying, but how can you say that you don't like the taste of alcohol. For one thing ‘alcohol' is a poison and if you actually drank alcohol on its own you would die – its taste is therefore irrelevant. However, even the strong alcoholic drinks (whisky, rum, gin, etc.) all taste totally different from one another and (especially for whisky) come in manifold different varieties. And then of course if you mix them with mixers, the drinks tend to taste of the mixer (that is the point of them) and there are infinite mixers (coke, fruit juice, lemonade, tonic, etc.). Then you have cocktails, and liquers which come in every flavour imaginable.
And we haven't even got on to wine (which is possibly the most varied foodstuff or beverage in terms of flavours on the planet) and beers which, whilst admittedly are an acquired taste, also come in as my varieties as you can shake a stick at, and of course new brews are constantly being brewed. I assume you are American (forgive me if not) but if you are you probably aren't aware of much outside cheap lager and Guinness, if so you need to be introduced to real ales and bitters.
Anyway, if you don't want to drink alcohol then that's fine, God knows there are enough reasons to avoid it, but flavour or taste aren't one of them.
Something to think about anyway,
I guess I should have been clearer but basically, the taste of alcohol in any form has never appealed to me at all. I've tried beer and wine but I just don't like the tastes at all. As for RVD, well, gee, violating US law is a big deal, especially when you're such a high profile star. As for pot not having destructive effects, among those listed are loss of coordination, distorted sense of time and short-term memory impairment. For a guy who does such high-risk moves as RVD, such effects can be very dangerous, not just for him but for his opponent so in this case pot can be destructive.
Taking a brief break, John Bryant has a few questions:
thanks for the fact that you answered my 2 questions and now I have 2 more this week: Me & Meehan share practically the same opinion of Alex Shelley. We both agree that he will be Huge in the future. In my opinion he is kind of like Owen Hart. He's got the skills,the ability & the moveset needed to be at the top of the business but he hasn't had his chance to truly shine. I just wanted to know whether or not you thought about Alex Shelly potentially being a future NWA Champ. The other question I have is to do with is what match do you personally think would make more sense: a match between Lance Hoyt & Test or a match between Amazing Red & Rey-Rey. Personally I'd wanna see Hoyt vs Test since it'd be a match between 2 natural-looking big men who use the same move. the only problem is where would the match take place since if it took place in the ECWCWE then they'd probably make into a Double Knockout between a Collision of the Big Boots and Rey Rey & Amazing Red is a match where I'd have to record it and watch in Slow-mo just to see everything that happens. But Final question(Jeez I'm making you put in overtime): I've heard & read that TNA needs more time or a new Title which do you propose is more needed?
I agree, Shelly can be huge once he gets the right push. Right now, he's tandemed with Nash, which doesn't exactly bode well for a long-term future but he's getting seriously over with the crowd and I think he can be a big star in the X Division. Is Hoyt or Red still with TNA? I haven't seen either in a while. I'm sure many would rather slit their wrists than watch a Hoyt-Test matchup but I would give a slight edge to Hoyt. Have to admit that Rey vs Red would be interesting but Rey would win, easy. I think at this point, a new timeslot will do TNA more good, not to mention expanding Impact a bit longer to give longer matches to grab interest. But I still think a TV belt would also liven up Impact broadcasts and give the mid-card a boost.
Back on topic of RVD, Lillallen Lit has this:
Rob Van Dam is truly the best athlete in wrestling right now and people make mistakes and it is a bed one but with sabu coming to the wwf and i will not say wwe i knew that wuz comin because of the history so do you think that rvd is the best wrestler in all of wrestling rite now and do you think the wwe is still underating him because he is truly ecw and not really wwe and that vince wont let any ecw star hold his beloved championship!! and joey styles had mentioned a pretty bold fact that in his match with cena on raw he wuz the championand he came out first and cena came out last that shows no respect and favoritism. what do u think?
TNA is a great show but they seem to me that they let wwe get into their heads and they just dont do their thing.Like they have divas now and tryin to poster them and i betcha soon they will have women matches the last great womens match i have seen wuz with Madusa and that chinese girl with sonny onoo if u remember that far and a tag match that wuz awesome for them 2 be woman and it was at wcw's wrestlewar 89 check it out it was a classic womens tag match with 4 chinese ladies. Now back to Tna they have rhino talkin bad about Vince Mcmahon and what he tried to do bye gettin rhyno back. Then with cornette makin that comment about gettin crowned the champion cuz ur someones son in law just stick wit ur show cuz it makes them look like they are hatin on the wwe. They need to bring Ravens Flock back and they should have brought back xpac and chyna and had the other half of degeneration x. Do a six man tlc like match with the best of the tag teams.bring LEsnar or goldberg to whip jarret and try to get vampiro to a vampire type crew. Tna will be real nice and the return of the outsiders. Then let alex shelley try to do a papparazi on wwe headquarters.
Let me know what u think i check u up everyday!!!!!!
Yes, RVD is a great in-ring competitor. I don't know if I'd call him the best (there's AJ, Joe, Daniels, Benoit…) but there's more to leading a company than just in-ring ability. RVD just doesn't have the best backstage attitude and worse he gives the indication he doesn't take things that seriously. That's not exactly the sort of thing a promoter wants in the guy who's supposed to carry the company. Hopefully, this could be a wake-up call to RVD and teach him some humility for when he does come back.
Yeah, TNA does seem too bent on pushing the idea they're better than WWE. If they'd just let the matches and workers speak for themselves, they'd do well but calling out WWE like that just makes them look more bush league. I have to say if TNA brings back Waltman and Chyna, they are taking a huge step backward. They tried an Outsiders reunion in 2004 and it was a disaster and Lesner and Goldberg would just add to the backstage tensions with their swelled heads. But having Alex do papparazi on WWE? That would be gold.
Jza has a rather lengthy entry for me:
Just read your latest article on RVD, and one thing that really seems to need clearing up here is that RVD's addictions are in NO WAY whatsoever on par with the downfall of Jakey Snakey and folks of that ilk. I seem to have been reading alot this past week on 411 from folks who don't smoke pot recreationally (fair enough, that's your choice) rushing to judge RVD touting the end of his career.
Nothing could be further from the truh.
Now don't get me wrong, I can concede your point about how seriously Vince is going to take "wellness" if for no other sake than that of publicity, and from that perspective yes RVD is one unfortunate motherfucker for getting caught when he did, but that's all it is, bad luck.
Now I don't know, and have never met RVD, but there is no doubt to anyone with half a brain that the dude is on some serious chronic, and has been for the majority of his career. Contrary perhaps to poipular belief, Vince Macmahon is no idiot and has quite clearly been around and seen some shit in his time, enough shit to be able to tell a blatant pot smoker like RVD when he sees one. (He might say what he wants on Jake's DVD about how Jake was able to fool him into thinking he was sober when he was fucked off his head, but Vince knew full well the extent of JAke's problems, that's just how he justifies his exploitation of the talent to himself. Hey, the dude has to find SOME way to sleep at night.) Yes, I dare say that's even a strong part of the reason why RVD never recieved a decent push until now. (That and the fact RVD crushed HHH's trachea last time they wrestled - note they haven't wrestled much since. Funny that.)
But the fact that Vince felt RVD was ready to carry both the WWE and the new ECW clearly shows that Vince was willing to look past RVD's habit. (habit, NOT a problem. Weed despite what others may tell you is not addictive. Folks do it cos they want to, not cos their body suffers from withdrawal when they stop.) Vince is a guy that epitomises the American dream - he will do ANYTHING and look past ANYTHING no matter how contradictory to his personal convictions or policies it may be in order to make a fast buck, it's what American big business is built on.
Come on kids, we're not fucking around on the playground for quarters anymore, this is big business. Do you really think Vince gives more a shit about his wrestlers than his bottom line? Does he bollocks. The simple fact as he himself has made clear in the past is that he deals with superheroes. He doesn't hire men he hires, sells and markets supermen to not only the American public, but to the world at large. Last I looked, immortals and superheroes don't exist. The only things that do exist, are drugs and folks willing enough to take them to get to where they want to be from a physical standpoint. Vince knows this, because he's one of those folks. He's admitted to taking shit to be where he is right now physically.
The cold, hard facts of the matter is that everyone who makes it in life, makes sacrifices. As a Wrestlemania promo once worded it, only those of us bold enough to chase dreams will catch them and fact is that RVD is one of those individuals who dared to dream. Vince can see that about him which is why he is giving him this chance, and why when RVD gets back he will go straight back to the top of the card where dreamers belong.
This is not the end of RVD's career, in fact far from it. This is just the beginning in the next stage of the evolution of Rob Van Dam, The whole fuckin show, the main event who the people have paid their good money to come and see. This legals bullshit? Just a hurdle to overcome on the way. When all is said and done, it won't be looked back on as the final nail on the coffin of Rob Van Dam, it will be looked at as just another obstacle overcome in the route to glory.
I love 411, and enjoy what the writers here have to say, but it is quite clear to me that there is a strong straight-edge bias of sorts here against anyone who does any type of drug. But to truly understand a drug user you have to be one, and until you are you have no real bearing on such matters.
Thank you for your column, it was very interesting nonetheless, and I appreciate the hard work that I'm sure you put in each and every week. Here's to hoping that next week's column in as thought-provoking as this week's was to me.
Thanks for your time, and take it easy my friend.
This was written before the Bash, when Vince was willing to redo some major matches rather than have Lashley, Khali and Super Crazy wrestle against doctor's orders. That shows Vince is being serious about the wellness policy, which, it has to be remembered, is something every wrestler is supposed to adhere to. RVD was not just breaking the law, he was breaking one of the major terms of his employment so he should count himself lucky he wasn't fired. I covered the effects of pot above and I think that while Vince knew of RVD's habit, he had the impression RVD would knock it off once he was given the push into the major spotlight. Once again, RVD has no one to blame but himself for this. I can tell you're a major RVD fan but perhaps the reason he's never gotten his rightful shot isn't so much bias against him but fears that exactly this sort of thing will happen again.
Moving on to last week's column on Scott Keith, which got quite a few people talking. The interestingly named BFP is Buffy had this short comment:
Hey, thanks for attempting to write a review on Scott Keith's new book. I say attempting because all I know from reading your article is that you hate Scott Keith, and that his new book is broken down as each chapter talking about a different month.
But I REALLY know you don't like Scott Keith now, so thanks for that!
Not much I can say to that. I don't hate Scott, I really don't. I hate how he went from a really funny guy who loved wrestling into an embittered arrogant know-it-all. He did do a review of Wrestlemania XXII which showed flashes of the guy he once was. A shame he can't have that much excitement for the sport anymore.
Our own Sturat Carapola sent this in:
Just wanted to say I loved the article on Scott Keith, and I agreed with it completely. In fact, it sounded eerily similar to a great conversation I
had with someone when I first started on 411 myself, so just out of curiosity I went back and checked my back emails, and sure enough it was a
pre-411 Michael Weyer! It's okay though, I thought it was a terrific article, I'm just jealous you got to write it before I did. :D
Anyway, I'm giving it an extra special plug at the bottom of my ECW column tomorrow. Awesome, awesome column.
A few months back, Sturat did a column on nepotism in wrestling. I wrote him about the story that whenever Verne Gagne tried to make his son Greg AWA World champion, every promoter under Verne threatened to quit. He wrote back that he'd only heard Scott Keith tell that story and that led us to a discussion where I made many of the same points I did in last week's column. Good memory, Stu.
Scott Alessi shared this rather interesting story hinting at a darker side of Scott:
I just finished reading your review of the new Scott Keith book on 411. It is the first of your articles that I have read and I must say it was very well
done. A lot of the writers on 411 these days, and floating around the IWC as a whole, are both not competent in their writing abilities and not knowledgable
enough about their subject matter to present a well written article. It was nice to see someone put together a quality review with well thought out criticisms.
Several years ago, I also had a brief run as a 411 writer. My writing career ended abruptly when I was given the chance to receive a free copy of Scott
Keith's "Tonight in This Very Ring: A Fan's History of Professional Wrestling" in exchange for providing a review. I wrote a review that was somewhat negative,
pointing out many of the flaws with Keith's style that you have identified. That book in particular seemed to have an identity crisis, in which Keith alternated
between writing for hardcore fans who knew every detail of wrestling and for those more casual fans who would pick up the book without knowing a lot of the
back stories already. Of course, I felt the review was fair, pointing out both the positives and negatives of the book and giving my overall assessment.
Unfortunately, Keith was still part of 411 at the time, and my review never made it to the site. I never got an answer as to why the review wasn't posted, but my
next attempt to send a column also went unanswered, and thus ended my time writing for 411. It is nice to see that 3 years later, a fair look at Keith's
work that includes negative comments can see the light of day. I even sent a copy of my review to Scott directly, but it was also ignored. Unfortunately, he
seems to mistake constructive criticism of one's work for bashing someone just because you disagree with him. As you pointed out, one of Scott Keith's big
problems in his writing is his attitude that anyone not agreeing with him is wrong.
I should point out that I didn't agree with every statement made in your review either, but your opinions were presented in a clear format that both showed they
were opinion rather than fact, yet also offered some evidence to back up your claims. I believe that Scott Keith could benefit from taking on a similar style,
since his approach to writing may suffice for an internet column, but as a professional author it leaves a lot to be desired.
I look forward to reading some of your other articles from the past, as well as the upcoming review of the "Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame: The Tag Teams" book. I
read the book earlier this year and found it to be a great history lesson on a nearly lost art, and think the book should be getting more attention than it
has.
I have to admit to being unsure about this. Whatever else I feel about Keith, I didn't think his ego was so great that he would get a guy fired rather than post a negative review. I have seen some reviews of his stuff at sites like Inside Pulse that have negative thoughts about him. Again, I wish Keith had done more comments on the review as I would have been interested in his full take. Hope you liked the review of the tag team book.
Another short letter, this one from David Stretch:
Thanks for the column. I never could stand Keith's smug, self-righteous whinings; he writes as if he's a theatre critic. I'm glad that someone out there is able to articulate similar feelings, even though I know you don't hate him altogether.
You've picked up a new reader!
Always glad to pick a new one up. I did see a few people on Keith's blog did think I was more right than others did. And glad someone can tell the difference between critcism of a guy and loathing every fiber of his being.
Erik Sampson sent in a rather long and detailed note:
I just finished reading your review of Scott Kieths latest book and thought I would throw some comments out to you. The review itself is alright. I
didn't really get a strong idea of whether or not the book was really good, but it did seem like something I'll end up reading at a barnes and noble to
kill time. The column felt more like an open letter to Scott Kieth than an actual review. I understand the comparisons between his books and other
current books help give the general public an idea of where the book stands. The problem comes in when someone hasn't read any of them, much like someone
being told about Superman Returns vs the older superman movies, people may know of superman but may not have see the movies and will not be able to
grasp whether or not it was good or bad. Now that isn't to say the writing was bad, because it was a fine article. You may, however, be more like Scott
Keith than you realize as you both tend to go off topic at random. Sometimes this can be interesting, sometimes it can be a tedious process for the
reader, results may vary.
The other issue is history, innaccuracies, and the inherent problem in many in not being able to view history as it truly happened. This is not a knock
on anyone. The problem is that no one can view the history of anything without putting even trace elements of their own opinions. Vince McMahon
does it, historians do it, Scott Keith does it, we all do it in day to day mild exaggerations of the truth. Now I'll agree with you that Keith does
present himself as fact a little too much. But, some of the things he says do seem to hold water. The no mercy ppv with jericho, benoit, and angle in
main event matches that did a better buy rate than previous ppv's that didn't feature those three is one of Keith's main points in the glass
ceiling theory, and it seems to hold true. Watching Jericho as the first undisputed champ become secondary to a feud between HHH and his Fiancee does
add fuel to the fire. I'm not saying Keith is always right but some of his opinions do hold up a little closer to fact.
Now for some HHH talk: I know that I personally didn't buy HHH as a world champion until after his feud with Foley in 2000, almost a year after he won
the belt. I'm not saying a lot of people did or didn't, just that I did not. I also remember growing sick of him over 2002-2004, and now don't even
bother paying attention to him, but thats just my opinion. Likewise, comparing HHH from even 1999 to 2001, he added quite a lot of muscle and
very little fat. To me, it looks like it was helped with something less than natural.
Speaking steroids, lets get into the wellness policy. Yes, recently McMahon has been pulling superstars off the road due to this program. Yes he is now
looking out for the safety and well being of his performers. Or he is covering his own ass so the US government doesn't step in and really screw
him by testing everyone one at once and showing how much drug use is going on in wrestling. I cannot personally accept this new level of benevolence of
Mr. McMahon as honest and genuine. Not from the guy who put every territory out of business, who has shown his own ass on television more times than any
corporation owner in history (im pretty sure no other company owner has shown their ass on television, but I may be wrong on that), a 54 year old
man who regularly makes out with and gropes his female employees on camera, and a man who has shown through booking and action a general distaste for
the business he conducts. I'm not going to believe he suddenly cares deeply about how his employees are doing. The wellness policy is an attempt at
taking the heat off McMahon after so many employees have suddenly died over the years. and the government and the general public are starting to ask
questions.
A quick note on the snubbing of ECW. If you can find them in the archives, Keiths rants on late 94-95 ECW are not only entertaining but overly
positive. I don't think I've read anything that praised Sabu, Tommy Dreamer, and Raven so highly. Keith really got down on them during the last few
years, and lets be honest, did anyone ever even remotely like Justin Credible, especially as a world champion?
As for montreal, enough has been said about it and rehashed and critiqued that I can't possibly add to it. Hindsight has shown very little in who was
right and wrong in that situation Everyone has an opinion on it. The whole thing about nationalism and Keiths love of Bret Hart though is no different
than any americans love of any person uniquley heroic to america.
The blind love for owen hart may be justified or it may just be ridiculous. I remember watching owen hart vs shawn michaels back just before
wrestlemania 14 and thinking owen was going to win the title and go one to fight austin at wrestlemania 14. I was very wrong but I bought owen in that
spot, and a lot of people probably did too. The owen hart tribute was a mix of pure emotion and some people going through the motions. I don't agree
with bringing his widow out on tv, nor did i agree or enjoy seeing guererro's widow out there either. The only way I could view the whole deal
was as a fan, and as a fan I had mixed feelings about the entire thing. If you go through the archives, you will find that Keith did review the Bret
DVD though.
There are more points to be made but this is long enough as it is. The review was well written and fairly easy to follow, and I think I've made
some solid counterpoints to a few things said. I'm by no means a loyalist to Keith, WWE, or anything else. I'm just a fan of wrestling in general. I know
what I like and I know what I don't like. Thats all I have to say about that, thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts on this.
Erik makes several interesting observations here. Yes, Vince can be accused of covering his ass with the wellness policy but assuming everything Vince does has an ulterior motive may be a bit much. Yes, Keith did have some nice things to say about ECW but quite often some ECW classics are sniffed at because he found them lacking in psychology or good wrestling. Quite often, Keith seems to prefer a two minute headlock/choke over a moonsault into the crowd. That's his right of course but it seems to do a disservice to the man who does the moonsault. As for nationalism, many Americans can find things wrong with wrestlers from their countries but Keith (especially in the last few years) sells that all Canadians are automatically great wrestlers who deserved to be pushed to the top. Oh and no, Keith had someone else review the main program of the Bret DVD while he just provided match reviews. Thanks for being fair and writing out you reasoning behind any complaints of my review.
Y2JHBK18 has this to say:
Hey man, I have long felt the same way about Scott Keith, and in particular about the way he will over-rate a Benoit match. Summerslam 2002, he gave RVD and Benoit ***3/4, citing only that RVD did not sell, yet gave HHH and HBK ****, the gulf in quality between those two matches was a lot more than that. He would later call it a 'garbage match' and seemingly went off on Shawn simply because he has put the other main eventers back in his large shadow. Something he has endeavoured not to do since his return, as we found out.
The only thing i disagree with is the 2000 assumption that Angle, Rock and Austin were needed as champs. The last two, hell yeah, Angle, at the time was not ready and I don't think the fans wanted him to be either. If it came to a choice between him and Jericho it would be the Canadian who would have walked it. Angle was good and getting better, but Jericho walked in and was there. Benoit though, he was not ready, nowhere near in the eys of the fans
I agree that despite what Keith says, Benoit wasn't quite ready for the big stage in WWF at that time. Jericho I still argue with but Angle was practically ready from the time he started and the heat back then shows that.
Another short comment, this from Manu Bumb:
So I've never actually read anything by Scott, I've just heard his name mentioned here or there, figured he was one of the IWC's made men, like metzer, etc.
"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"
And now I know he's crazy.
"Crazy" may be pushing it a bit. Maybe a tad obsessive with regards to Owen and still blames Vince for it. I'd like to think he's gotten past it a bit but then every now and then he'll make a comment on "disgracing Owen's name" that brings it all back.
Wrapping it up, Steve Ford has a few comments and a link to a site that debunks one of Keith's "shoots":
All I can say is wow. You were dead on about Scott Keith. I honestly cant remember when I started reading his columns but it was back when he started with some site that went under and he had to start his own smarks.com site. I followed him through that to 411mania, and honestly when he left 411 I refused to go read insidepulse.com.
I wrote him several times about his increasingly acidic view of wrestling, and he wrote back a couple of times, but afterward it seemed to fall on deaf ears. *shrugs* I always wondered what happened to him and now I know.
And now for something I think you will get a kick out of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsHwFyY3jrk
That is a link to youtube and the famous video of the Luger vs Brody shoot. You can see for yourself what happened. I was shocked the footage existed but it does and there it is. Enjoy and I hope to hear back from you and your opinion on this what I consider, historic video.
I checked the video out and it's quite clear that what Keith says happens is not what happens. You can see Brody refusing to sell but Luger doesn't look afraid, just annoyed, hands on hips and shaking head until he finally says "to hell with it" and climbs out of the cage and walks off. I can see how some might think Luger is running but to me, it just looks like he's stalking off and putting this past him. Considering that Luger was a raw rookie at the time and Brody a vet, this was really infantile behavior, a sign to the attitude Luger would have in the future.
A pretty big column this week thanks to all the mail, keep it all coming. And remember…
"Everyone in that section of the plane is already dead."
14 Days. Bring. It. On.
