Scott Keith's new book

[ringsyde]

I just finished reading Scott Keith's new book; "Wrestling's One Ring Circus". After reading Flair's autobiography, I was desperately in need of a wrestling book that didn't outright lie and misrepresent the industry to serve the needs of a few (in short, Flair used his book to prostitute himself and his once great career to get HHH and Vince McMahon over - something I cannot forgive him for, no matter how legendary he is). Keith has done it once again, in my view. While he obviously hates the McMahon/Helmsley era thinking and doesn't hide that fact even a little, his book still comes off as more informative and more observant of all aspects of the time in which he writes than anything out of WWE press since Foley's books. This was a great Christmas gift, and it's going on the must-read wrestling list on my site.

I wonder if anyone else has had a chance to read Keith's book and wants to share their thoughts. If you have not read this or ANY of Scott Keith's books ("Buzz on Pro Wrestling" & "Tonight in This Very Ring"), you owe it to yourself to pick one up and dig in. He's easily better than most of the wrestling writers out there.

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

I don't think very highly of Scott Keith or is writings. He has a notorious reputation for 'inventing' stories and misrepresenting facts. Many fans over the years have become innocent victims of his misnformation.

Below are two threads that address some of his credibility issues:

Absolute worst Scott Keith lies or mistakes:

tinyurl.com/3oeez

Scott Keith's Tonight In This Very Ring:

tinyurl.com/3ttwc

[ringsyde]

I'll have to check those out. I know Keith is pro-Canadian stars (as are most Canadian wrestling writers), but I was unaware of his prevarications. Thanks for the tip.

[ringsyde]

I just checked the sites you marked, and they're either highly charged opinion or laced with disagreements with typographical errors in Keith's books. Yes, he does get some facts wrong or twisted, but I don't think either of these sites (which look vaguely familiar AND are full of posts from the same pc IP's) shows enough evidence to completely discredit him. Have you any other information or examples. I'm not patronizing; as a writer and a fan of the industry, I'm interested in opposing views here.

[Joe]

RingsYde said:

I just finished reading Scott Keith's new book; "Wrestling's One Ring Circus". After reading Flair's autobiography, I was desperately in need of a wrestling book that didn't outright lie and misrepresent the industry to serve the needs of a few (in short, Flair used his book to prostitute himself and his once great career to get HHH and Vince McMahon over - something I cannot forgive him for, no matter how legendary he is). Keith has done it once again, in my view. While he obviously hates the McMahon/Helmsley era thinking and doesn't hide that fact even a little, his book still comes off as more informative and more observant of all aspects of the time in which he writes than anything out of WWE press since Foley's books. This was a great Christmas gift, and it's going on the must-read wrestling list on my site.

I wonder if anyone else has had a chance to read Keith's book and wants to share their thoughts. If you have not read this or ANY of Scott Keith's books ("Buzz on Pro Wrestling" & "Tonight in This Very Ring"), you owe it to yourself to pick one up and dig in. He's easily better than most of the wrestling writers out there.

I have not read Scott Keith's book, but judging by what I have seen on this thread and the linked website, it seems that his book would be no less one-sided than how you perceive Flair's book.

If you have any interest on my opinions about Flair's book, and why I do not view his actions as selling out, read my posts on the thread entitled "My Ric Flair Rant" on the WWE section of this board.

[Chris Ingersoll]

Guest-Like said:

I don't think very highly of Scott Keith or is writings. He has a notorious reputation for 'inventing' stories and misrepresenting facts. Many fans over the years have become innocent victims of his misnformation.

Below are two threads that address some of his credibility issues:

Absolute worst Scott Keith lies or mistakes:

tinyurl.com/3oeez

Scott Keith's Tonight In This Very Ring:

tinyurl.com/3ttwc

So... two message board threads -- one a year and a half old -- from the same parent site that is known to be populated by SK haters? That's all you have?

I haven't picked up "Circus" yet, but I will eventually. I read Keith because he entertains me more often than not. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters to me.

[ringsyde]

My point exactly, Chris. This board is rife with people who obviously hate him so much they've tuned him out. Get the book. You'll enjoy it.

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

Chris said:

So... two message board threads -- one a year and a half old -- from the same parent site that is known to be populated by SK haters? That's all you have?

I haven't picked up "Circus" yet, but I will eventually. I read Keith because he entertains me more often than not. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters to me.

First I'd point out there's a difference between not tolerating poor journalism and 'hating' an individual. We obviously have very different standards regarding accuracy in reporting if your response to a list of false claims consists of 'is that it?'..

Just from the first thread alone, here is a list of inaccuracies in the course of casual dialogue from the first thread:

* Creating FAKE family relations ex: Ed Moretti = Lisa Moretti's (Ivory) father

* He said that Jay Youngblood & Ricky Steamboat were stripped of the (JCP) World tag belts after Youngblood died in a plane crash. They actually gave up the belts in early 84 when Steamboat retired briefly. Jay died a year later from a heart attack.

* The NWA "took Georgia away from Ole and gave it to Crockett."

* He said Tim Horner was Bob Horner's son and is somehow involved in baseball

* He claimed that Dusty was gonna put the WCW Title on Rick Steiner at Starrcade 88. There was no WCW Title in 1988.

* Blatantly lied about Hulk Hogan's schedule claiming he only worked two dates a month.

* He said that the NWA folded while Flair was still champion, but then was subsequently restarted by Dennis Coralluzzo, and that's the reason why WCW could no longer use the name, leading to the creation of the WCWI title.

* Dusty Rhodes was apparently fired three different times in 1988. One was for the monster bladejob he did on TBS against the Road Warriors, the second was when Crockett was forced to pick between him and Flair when the time came to sell to Turner, and the third was because of the Starrcade debacle where he wanted Rick Steiner to win the title in five minutes.

* The finish to the Flair-Fujinami match was actually a screwjob by the NWA on WCW to get the title off of Flair (nevermind the fact there was no distinction whatsoever being made between it and the WCW title at the time). Then, all of a sudden, they decide they don't want the title on Fuji afterall, so they decide that Flair's gonna win it back at the first SuperBrawl.

* And finally, from what I understand, he's actually thinking about writing a book on the history of WCW. On the Smarks site, he has a sample portion. When discussing the NWA, one paragraph says it was established in 1946, while in another it's 1949.

* FROM HIS FALL OF THE AWA ARTICLE....
Vince McMahon made the first grab for him, bringing him into the newly-renamed WWF in 1981 as heel Terry Boulder, then later Hulk Hogan.
If he came in the wwf in 1981 first as terry boulder, than as hulk hogan, how did wwf have a 1980 shea stadium show with Andre the Giant vs Hulk Hogan?
I never knew much of this Keith guy before today, but just after reading his AWA article he seems to be a joke.

* he made a comment about how the People's Elbow hadn't been named as such yet during Summerslam 1998. He was wrong, and I wrote him an e-mail saying that the Rock had been using that name since pretty much the beginning of 1998, and I found it so hilarious that I used The_Peoples_Elbow as my Yahoo screename. Keith couldn't be wrong though, so he e-mailed me back with some ridiculous story of how he and somebody else on the RSPW boards made up the name that summer and then the WWE started using it.

* n 1980, Rocky Johnson was working as one of the top babyfaces in Jim Crockett Promotions.

* The top heel team at that time was Ray Stevens & Greg Valentine. To get heat, they mockingly proclaimed that they, not Ricky Steamboat & Jay Youngblood, were "The People's Champions

* From Keith's book: "In interviews, they would do the schtick were Stevens would call his Bombs Away finisher "The People's Kneedrop" and Valentine's bionic elbow "The People's Elbow." Apparently, little Dwayne was amused by this stuff as I was. I'm almost willing to bet my life Scott Keith never saw any of these interviews. He's a fraud and a liar.

Now if anyone wants to defend this small sampling of Scott Keith's numerous false claims above I'm willing to debate the specifics.

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

RingsYde said:

I just checked the sites you marked, and they're either highly charged opinion or laced with disagreements with typographical errors in Keith's books. Yes, he does get some facts wrong or twisted, but I don't think either of these sites (which look vaguely familiar AND are full of posts from the same pc IP's) shows enough evidence to completely discredit him. Have you any other information or examples. I'm not patronizing; as a writer and a fan of the industry, I'm interested in opposing views here.

Li

Actually the gist of the criticism directed at Keith is on content, not typos or grammar.

Below is a book review from the Wrestling Observer's Todd Martin detailing many false inaccurate claims in one of Keith's published works. Unfortunately due to size I will have to chop the text into parts.

A Review of "Tonight in this Very Ring"
by Todd Martin

Scott Keith, fresh off his disastrous "The Buzz on Professional Wrestling," is back with another literary offering. Since I make it a point to read just about every major wrestling book that comes out, I decided to purchase a copy when I picked up the Hardy Boyz book. After reading a few pages, it took me a long time to get back to it. "Tonight in this Very Ring" is a very poor effort that I can imagine few people enjoying. He says at one point he expects everyone reading this book has read Mick Foley's "Have a Nice Day." If this is true, one would think he wouldn't need to spend so much time mundanely recapping third-tier WWF angles. I have no idea who this book is written for. Keith clearly put in no research, he is not objective, he has no credentials, he isn't funny even when he tries to be, and he seems to have little pride in his work.

The book is almost like two different books. The book purports to be a "history" of professional wrestling. However, professional wrestling here means only WWF, and the period of 1963 to 1996 gets a whopping 29 pages. That is four pages more than 2001, which hardly needs recounting. That's actually probably for the best, because those 29 pages of 1963-1996 are absolutely terrible for a laundry list of reasons I'm going to detail here. They are poorly written, poorly structured, inaccurate, and biased. The book from 1997 on is more accurate. However, that doesn't mean it is better. It is boring, has no humor, brings absolutely nothing to the table, and is like flushing a couple hours of your time down the toilet. It is as unambitious as any nonfiction work I have ever read.

The book just feels lazy in its writing. This is reflective in the appendixes. Appendixes are meant to provide relevant information to a given study, and usually are the result of specific research. However, Keith's appendixes are lists of moderately useful information that's available anywhere on the net. It comes across as just filling pages. Worse, the appendixes aren't even accurate and clear. He lists composite TV ratings for "wrestling events." What that is supposed to mean isn't even clear. WWF plus WCW? Raw plus Smackdown? It turns out the numbers are for Raw, which I found out by looking up the same numbers up online. There are "#" designations in the WWF Tag Title history, clearly leftovers from a simple cut and paste from puroresu.com, only with the explanation of what they mean removed. He lists PPV "revenue" history, but then only gives buy rates. To make matters worse, there is an explanation prior to the list that explains how PPV buy rates are calculated, but it does not point out how the universe of PPV available homes has ballooned. Thus, the layman would get the impression that Wrestlemania 3 drew 4 times the revenue of the last few Wrestlemanias, which is blatantly false.

Keith interjects old match reviews very frequently. It fills up the book without having to spend much time, which seems to be a trend for him. Unfortunately, it also gives the book a cut and paste feel, and since he wrote the reviews at a different time than the narrative, there are frequently contradictions. One page HHH can't wrestle, and the next Keith is calling him God. He refers to the Hell in a Kennel as "the unanimous choice for Worst Match of the Year within the entire wrestling community," but his match review gives it a * rating versus a -***1/2 for Taker-Bossman HITC from the same year.

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

Continued

Keith's tone throughout the book is malicious and disrespectful towards just about everyone involved in the pro wrestling business. It is hardly the book of a "fan." It is unobjectively negative. Keith isn't one to shy away from libel. He refers to the "insane amount of cocaine" Junkyard Dog did, says Jimmy Snuka was a "well-known abuser of all sorts of substances," describes Tammy Sytch "running a softcore porno Web site with fellow skank Missy Hyatt after battling addictions to alcohol and crack" and says Mr. Hughes was released in 1997 when he was "discovered moonlighting at an S&M bar." Dishing really vicious rumors that you've heard third hand is a good way to get yourself sued.

The introduction to the book is entitled, "Everything in this Book is a Lie." It feels like an apology for the book's narrow scope and inaccuracy. He discusses for one paragraph some of the more complex and important issues involved in wrestling, such as painkillers, steroids and unions, but then drops such subjects for the rest of the book. Looking into those sorts of issues would take time and effort, just like researching history would. Spending a page talking about Right to Censor is much easier, even if no one wants to read about it. He then talks about the difficulty in getting information on the wrestling business. While that is true, it seems an exaggerated excuse to justify false bits of information, and a lack of information isn't the reason for many of his mistakes. He says "everything here all happened to the best of my or anyone else's knowledge." What he should have said is "everything here all happened to the best of my or someone else's knowledge," since he is clearly very willing to report things he heard somewhere else without citation.

Anyone with an appreciation for wrestling history will grow angry at the book quite quickly. It claims to be a history of pro wrestling, when it only really covers five years. To make matters worse, it does an incredibly poor job of covering the real history of wrestling. This isn't history. His first chapter covers 1963 through 1993. Why even bother covering that period in so little depth? What's worse is how many errors make it into this chapter. It's abhorrent history, work that Keith ought to be ashamed of. His discussion of Bruno Sammartino lasts a couple of sentences. He notes "rest assured that Bruno did exist and he was champion for a very long time and drew lots of money." Thanks, I needed that reassurance. He claims, "History has erased Bruno from the annals of WWF greats." That isn't true. Only the WWF has, and so has Keith by being too lazy to do some research and provide more on Bruno than who he won the WWWF Title from and who he lost it to. Ironically, Keith ends up backing the WWF model of wrestling history by only covering recent WWF. The perfect example of that is his claim that in 1963, "if you controlled MSG, you controlled the wrestling world." I don't think even McMahon, Sr. would have made such an absurd claim.

The third paragraph into the book, there is another egregious error. In talking about Vince McMahon, Sr. and Toots Mondt, he says, "Toot's big draw was
'Nature Boy' Buddy Rogers, a notorious heel who won the NWA's world title from Lou Thesz." This one had my head spinning. To begin with, he won the title from Pat O'Connor. Three seconds of research would tell you that. But even worse, Thesz made it a point for years to talk about how he never put over Buddy Rogers in any situation, let alone a world title situation. Thesz' dislike for Buddy Rogers is one of the most memorable parts of Thesz's autobiography, which happens to be the most important book ever written on wrestling. Thesz' mentality towards Rogers was an important reason the whole situation went down the way it did. Saying Rogers had won the belt from Thesz and now they were trying to put the belt back on Thesz is like saying Shawn Michaels had lost the WWF Title to Bret Hart prior to Survivor Series 1997, and Vince wanted to put the belt back on Shawn. It grotesquely distorts the whole story.

Things don't get any better with Pedro Morales. Keith comes up with the most generic description he can muster: Morales "appealed to a wide audience and got some great reactions." The irony is that in trying to come up with as generic and broad a statement as he can, he still falls short. Morales was an ethnic star. He drew really well amongst Puerto Ricans, but not very well amongst other groups. That is the definition of a niche audience, and the antithesis of a "wide audience." It's a horrible description of Morales. He then claims Morales is "more a footnote in history than anything." Funny, Keith talks for 150 pages about 4 years and Pedro's almost 3 years as WWWF champion are a "footnote." Perhaps that makes Rock a footnote, too. He gives more information about Shawn Stasiak than Stan, and similarly breezes over Bob Backlund.

Keith's bias against Hulk Hogan is obvious from the very beginning. He's called the "king of the fad audience" which is interesting given his worldwide drawing power for over 2 decades. Throughout the book, the "orange goblin" gets nary an iota of praise for all his success. There's plenty to criticize about Hogan, but it's one thing to criticize and another to warp history to advance your agenda. He talks about WWF business beginning to collapse around Hogan in 1988, which is horribly false. Then again, 1989-1992 to him was a bad period. 1993-1996 was worse. Mid-1996-1998 "the WWF was essentially a zombie." 1999 was mired by Russo. 2000 had convoluted booking. 2001 everything fell apart. Reading Keith, it's hard to discern there actually was a boom period.

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

Continued


Keith's biases manifest themselves in plenty of other falsehoods. He describes Randy Savage's heel turn, saying "WWF panicked and turned him heel again," when it was planned all along and did big business. Obviously, he couldn't handle Hogan getting the belt back. He says "Rick Rude was looking like a good draw on top" in 1990, when he wasn't. He talks about Owen Hart having a great match with Curt Hennig at WrestleMania V, which is the first time I've heard that 4 minute quickie called great.

From 1993-1996 he gets more specific, and that's not a good thing. It's total revisionist history. This is his description of the period: "Vince McMahon is a once-wise, aging promoter of a large wrestling company who is in need of a new long-term draw. He summons his three biggest names to him and decides that whichever one kisses the most ass will be given a run as champion. Diesel and Shawn Michaels lie and profess their respect for Vince with various hyperbole, while Bret Hart simply states his loyalty to him and no more. Vince loses control and punishes Bret for his answer, jobbing him to Bob Backlund and giving the WWF title to Diesel instead. As Vince moves away from his creative duties, he is manipulated back and forth by his two champions, both of whom are using him for their own gains. Soon Vince's only true ally is Jim Ross, who ironically is the only one who speaks the truth. Bret Hart, in the meantime, is being courted by Eric Bischoff, who soon invades the weakened Vince's domain, nearly costing him the WWF. The invasion is barely held back by Vince's loyalist workers, and, as the Clique deserts the WWF, Vince reconciles with Bret Hart and signs him to a twenty-year deal-only to discover that it's too late. Bret has been morally scarred by the changing face of wrestling, and Vince has gone so made that he is unable to see that, and thinking that Bret is still a viable draw and able to carry the WWF title whenever the need should arise, he gives up and instead allows Shawn Michaels an extended reign as champion, thus effectively conceding defeat in the Monday Night Wars." I'll let that stand on its own as "history."


The mistakes in the pre-1997 period continue. He argues that starting the WBF was "an amazingly hypocritical move for someone who had just fired Davey Boy Smith and Ultimate Warrior for steroid use a few months before." The WBF was announced in 1991 and it closed July 15, 1992. Ultimate Warrior and British Bulldog were prominent performers at SummerSlam 1992, which was held August 31. They were fired that fall. Real fair criticism. He says Bob Backlund was looking at his hands originally because he was going to be possessed by a returning Papa Shango. That's the first time I've heard that story, and it sounds absurd. Of course, no source is cited. I didn't know Al Isaacs was a consultant for this book.

Bob Backlund gets incredible praise from Keith. When he won the title at Survivor Series 1994, Keith says he was the "most interesting heel champion they'd had in years and was incredibly over." I wonder what standard of "incredibly over" he is using. Backlund was "still a great wrestler at forty-one." I didn't know he was a great wrestler at thirty-one. But 41 was "an age that seems downright young compared to the people on top of WCW at the same time." The top three stars of WCW at that time were Hulk Hogan, who was the same age, Sting, who was five years younger, and Vader, who was also five years younger. One wonders why Keith is so positive towards Backlund. Well, of course, he has an agenda! It's because Kevin Nash was given the title next, and Keith hates Nash. Nash was a disaster as WWF champion. One doesn't need to distort the positives of other wrestlers to argue Nash was a bad choice as champion. It's pretty obvious in hindsight. The whole thing is even sillier given the fact Backlund was a simple transition champion.

From that point on, Keith loves bashing the Clique. Apparently, in 1994, "booking was starting to center almost exclusively on those four, and as a result they were the only ones getting enough time to be significantly over." This is another absurd lie. The top stars for WWF in 1994 were Bret Hart, Owen Hart, Lex Luger, Undertaker, and Yokozuna. Diesel, Razor Ramon and Shawn Michaels feuded for the Intercontinental Title. 1-2-3 Kid was in the lower card. Keith criticizes WWF for its official history, but in my book Keith is more biased than WWF in his rewriting of history. In 1995, "the entire direction of the promotion shifted to Shawn Michaels vs. Diesel." That's funny, I seem to recall the main event of that WrestleMania being Lawrence Taylor vs. Bam-Bam Bigelow, the second time in the history of WrestleMania the WWF champion wasn't in the last match. Not to mention the Shawn-Diesel feud lasted only a couple of months before Shawn went face. He describes the Clique as "whiny children." I wonder if he's ever met any of them. Despite not being there, Keith describes what happened to Michaels in Syracuse as "comeuppance" for picking a fight. He's obviously much better at figuring out right and wrong in drunken barfights than I am. Michaels also was apparently to blame for Vader's burial in 1996. The irony is this period was horrible for WWF. Events like King of the Ring 1995 were amongst the worst in company history, Diesel was a very poor draw and the product was in trouble. But it is impossible to take anything Keith says seriously because he is so biased and inaccurate.

Just like his contempt for the Clique leads to biased, bad history, so too does his later contempt for other figures. He has such obvious contempt for HHH that manifests itself time and again. At one point he says about Undertaker: "Retire now, you crippled, has-been, slow-moving, fried-food eating, no-money-drawing, talentless piece of selfish **** ." This has no place in anything claiming to be history. History implies some semblance of objectivity. This is the definition of bias, and frankly for all the Undertaker has done to hinder the development of some younger stars the past couple of years, he does not deserve such insults from contemptuous, ungrateful, mean-spirited pricks.

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

Continued

Keith's fuzzy memory doesn't relate just to the Clique. He claims in 1996 McMahon "re-signed the Ultimate Warrior and gave him free rein." How exactly did Warrior have free rein when he lasted less than six months and was fired for missing a couple of house shows without sufficient notice? Keith talks about the WWF during this period clearing out deadwood. His list of such deadwood is Diesel, Razor Ramon , Ted DiBiase, 1-2-3 Kid, Jeff Jarrett, Mabel, Tatanka and Lex Luger. All except Mabel and Tatanka jumped to WCW. Kid was allowed to leave with little interference, so being generous, the WWF let three guys go. That isn't clearing out the company. That's being raided, an obvious distinction.

The book changes dramatically in 1997. The errors become much less frequent. It almost is as if Keith first watched wrestling in 1997, given how much difference there is in accuracy between the two sections. However, that is not to say it gets better. There is still no central argument, it still isn't funny, and it still doesn't bring any real insight. But it is at least accurate. Then again, there is at least some entertainment value in seeing how many errors the author can make. There isn't much fun in reading about the 1997-2001 period in 2003. I watched all of this, analyzed it myself, and read about it in the Observer, Torch, Figure Four, and other sources. There aren't too many hardcore fans in 2003 that didn't experience at least a majority of the 1997-2001 period.

There are still errors. Keith calls Ken Shamrock a "UFC washout." That's an odd assertion. Shamrock had been UFC Superfight Champion, hadn't truly lost in the Octagon since UFC 1 with the exception of the boring debacle at UFC 8 with Dan Severn, and left UFC by choice right into a bidding war between WWF and NJPW. Keith seems to have something against Shamrock, but I'm not sure what. He claims Owen Hart and British Bulldog were supposed to drop the tag titles at WrestleMania to Vader and Mankind before Bret Hart got the finish changed. I have never heard that story before, and it sounds more like hearsay than anything else to me. He totally misses the boat on Brian Pillman. He notes that Pillman took an excessive amount of drugs and alcohol, but observes, "in the end it was a simple heart problem that got to him." Yeah, a simple heart problem brought about by taking excessive amounts of drugs and alcohol.

The strongest praise the book deserves is that it largely gets this period right. He describes well the interesting machinations with Bret, Shawn, Austin, Taker, Sid and company early in 1997. It was fun to read about Canadian Stampede again. His discussion of Montreal is generally fair, even if he has a few too many wacko conspiracy theories. At least he acknowledges he is speculating there. He does a good job explaining why Austin became as popular as he did, although I think most people understand. He really nails the problem with Vince's infamous speech about refusing to insult his audience: "He wanted things both ways-by presenting his product as
'reality based' to cater to the whims of the Jerry Springer, white-trash audience while at the same time seeming more highbrow for the legitimate media." He also correctly identifies Survivor Series 1998 as some of the best storytelling in recent wrestling history. He nails what went wrong with the Invasion angle, but everyone knows already what went wrong.

Keith goes on a rant about Sable that I disagree with completely and am going to expand into a full column in the near future. Keith isn't alone by any means in this view, so it isn't a criticism of him specifically, so much as a lot of people. Keith argues Sable "made the same mistake that every woman in the WWF has made: she thought people cared about her and she actually meant something." He references Chyna and Wend Richter as having similar delusions, and concludes, "As mean and sexist as it may sound, North American wrestling has no tolerance for women as anything but sex objects or freakshow oddities on the bottom of the card because wrestling is run by sexist pigs with misogynistic tendencies." People did care about Sable, and she did actually mean something. She drew big ratings, and made big money with her videos, Playboy pictorials, magazines, and so forth. Women are held to an incredible double standard when it comes to hardcore wrestling fans. They need to be servile, humble and grateful for everything they get, while the men don't receive such scrutiny. Sable and Chyna earned a position by their performance. Their gender has made them an object of contempt, and that isn't fair. Male managers don't put their bodies on the line like the wrestlers either, but they don't receive that same criticism. I will write more on this later.

Keith nails the problem with today's WWE writing. He describes the writers as being either wrestling driven, soap opera driven or comedy driven. Thus, you get all sorts of backstage stuff and not enough focus on the ring. The problem with this, as he puts it, is that "the backstage stuff is just there to build to the matches. It's not an attraction on its own." This is a lesson current WWE decision makers would be well served to learn.

Keith asks the question how WWF went from being so good to so bad in 3 years in the afterword. This is the only interesting question presented by the entire book, and he devotes a whopping four pages to it. He argues that the key factors were lack of competition, backstage politics, weak storylines, overexposure, one homogenized WWF style, lack of elevation, and lack of direction. It's a shame he didn't spend more time on this subject, because it was one of the few points in the entire book where there was a clear progression of thought and argument.

Scott Keith's "Tonight in this Very Ring" claims to be a fan's history of professional wrestling. What it actually ends up amounting to is a cynic's lazy recap of the past five years of WWF. It's equal parts aggravating and pointless. I generally place wrestling books in three tiers. Tier one would be the likes of Thesz, Dynamite, and both Foley books. Tier two would be the likes of Lawler, Hardyz, Cappetta and Heenan. Tier three would be the likes of Chyna, Diana Hart, Rock and DiBiase. This book clearly belongs in the third tier. The book had no reason for being written, and has even less reason for being read. Strongest recommendation to avoid.

[Swarm]

wow

[Chris Ingersoll]

Guest-Like said:

First I'd point out there's a difference between not tolerating poor journalism and 'hating' an individual. We obviously have very different standards regarding accuracy in reporting if your response to a list of false claims consists of 'is that it?'..

I think the problem here is labeling Mr. Keith as a "journalist" in any way, shape, or form (no matter what bravado appears on the covers of his books). The majority of what he is "reporting" is his opinion; journalists relay facts -- a decidedly rare commodity in the world of wrestling.

I'm sure you noticed in those threads people mentioning the fact that his introduction to Tonight... is titled "Everything in this Book is a Lie". What wasn't there was content from that introduction:

See, Tonight... in This Very Ring isn't really what you'd call a straightforward history of the WWF. The thing with wrestling is that "history" for promoters is made up of half-truths and imaginary situations, and you can't just go up to a WWF PR guy and ask for attendance figures and gate receipts (like a normal journalist would). Why? Because all the information is filtered carefully through the whims of Vince McMahon, according to what he wants the public to believe on a given day. So you're forced to seek outside sources like newsletters or "insiders" or whatever meager scraps of information you can squeeze out of wrestlers in the hopes that they're not lying today -- because generally they are.

[E]arly in 2001, Vince McMahon did an interview with Bob Costas on the subject of the then-floundering-but-not-dead XFL, and once Costas strayed from Vince's comfort zone of what he considered the "truth", it nearly turned into a fistfight. That's their life -- lying. Normal actors play a part on stage, then go home to be themselves. Not wrestlers -- when HHH goes home, for instance, he's still Hunter to his friends, not Paul Levesque[.] Most wrestlers liver their gimmicks 24/7, and that's why it's so frustrating to try to get any kind of useful information out of them, or anyone else associated with the sport for that matter. Basically, we only know as much as they want us to know. For a sport that's been so gung-ho about reveling in its own fakeness for the past few years, it's sure hard to get a straight answer out of a wrestling promoter.

[...]

So in a sense, everything in this book is a lie. Just like wrestling isn't actually wrestling, it's "sports entertainment." [...] [T]hat is to say, everything here all happened to the best of my or anyone else's knowledge. But you never know when Vince is going to change his mind and suddenly decide that it didn't happen, ya know? Trust me -- if the WWF were running the White House, Vietnam would have been wiped from the record books and replaced with the plot of The Green Berets because there's more money to be had that way.

On the other hand, with wrestling, you don't want to know that whole truth of everything, because that sucks the fun out of it and you end up a cynical jerk like me. So they lie, we as fans accept those lies in order to maintain our sanity and move on with our lives. So rather than a dreary history of what happened according to the WWF (which would take about ten pages, since history is rewritten from the ground up for political reasons every four years or so), this is more of a personal recollection of what being a fan of the WWF was all about during its biggest years, down periods, and embarassments.

Taken in that context, the 15 or so "absolute worst" errors you listed, while admittedly wrong, don't seem to justify calling the author "a fraud and a liar".

As far as the review goes, where's Mr. Martin's book? I'm sure it would be a reader-gripping page turner full of factual information and quality entertainment.

Other people certainly seemed to like it:

Lords of Pain.net

411mania.com/wrestling (where Scott used to write, but the writers there weren't above taking shots at each other)

Although others gave it a more mixed review...

oratory.rajah.com/index.php?archive=442

On a side note... man, is it hard to find reviews for this thing that aren't "customer reviews" on a retailer's site.

[ringsyde]

Damn! All I wanted to share was that I liked the book and it (like all of Scott Keith's books) is a good read. I'm going to watch the PPV!!

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

Chris said:

"I think the problem here is labeling Mr. Keith as a "journalist" in any way, shape, or form (no matter what bravado appears on the covers of his books)."

A journalist is one who presents material written for publication. Scott Keith is a journalist in that sense of the word. Like any other writer in any other genre on the planet it is fair to assess the veracity of the STATEMENTS he makes and judge him on his level of truthfulness.

Chris said:

"The majority of what he is "reporting" is his opinion; journalists relay facts -- a decidedly rare commodity in the world of wrestling."

Again putting his 'opinions' aside, as the links and material presented here show Scott Keith is known for presenting misinformation and revisionist history. That is what makes him a poor journalist. While lying may not violate your personal standards, as a reader such a presentation has no value to me. Which is why I said so in my first post and provided examples to better inform my perspective.

Your defining deviancy down approach to defending Scott Keith as mainly an opinion writer may excuse his proclivity for presenting rampanent misinformation in your eyes, but it does nothing for my own standards as a reader. A liar is a liar. A revisionist is a revisionist. It's that simple.

Chris said:

"I'm sure you noticed in those threads people mentioning the fact that his introduction to Tonight... is titled "Everything in this Book is a Lie". What wasn't there was content from that introduction:"

Yes, the disclaimer was provided to no doubt protect him against the liable suits that would surely follow. I don't recall a quality journalist like Dave Meltzer ever having to stoop to such a pathetic level. This just further substantiates my low opinion of him and his work, although it honestly couldn't go any lower than it already is.

Chris said:

"Taken in that context, the 15 or so "absolute worst" errors you listed, while admittedly wrong, don't seem to justify calling the author "a fraud and a liar"."

I'm at a loss here. A person who 'lies' is a 'liar'. A person who presents 'fraudulent information' is perpetrating 'fraud'. A disclaimer before hand does not negate the reality of the actions or prohibit their appropriate labeling.

Chris said:

"As far as the review goes, where's Mr. Martin's book? I'm sure it would be a reader-gripping page turner full of factual information and quality entertainment."

Todd Martin was acting as a book reviewer, who provided a detailed assessment on the veracity of the content presented in Scott Keith's book as it was written. The fact that you chose to respond to such a detailed presentation of Keith's errors and distortions with a snide comment toward the one EXPOSING Keith's poor work earns a rolling eyes smilie!

Chris said:

"Other people certainly seemed to like it:

Lords of Pain.net

411mania.com/wrestling (where Scott used to write, but the writers there weren't above taking shots at each other)

Although others gave it a more mixed review...

oratory.rajah.com/index.php?archive=442"

No doubt there are people who 'like' the book, just as people like trash TV, tabloid magazines, and other levels of writing akin to what Scott Keith does.

What concerns me is the readership that is the victim of trusting Keith as a responsible truthful author. The people who will go around thinking Buddy Rogers beat Lou Thesz for the WWWF title, the NWA 'took' Georgia from Ole and 'gave' it to Jim Crockett, Hulk Hogan worked only twice a month during the Hulkamania era, Ray Stevens was the master of the People's Knee Drop and loads of other nonsense that they will credit to the writings of Scott Keith, whom they believe to be a credible source.

Were a friend of mine who had no clue about pro wrestling to come across Scott Keith's writings and ask me about it, the material would make me ashamed to admit I'm a wrestling fan. I find his tone to be in extremely poor taste, which is only made worse considering he profits off the buiness and performers whom he lies and distorts about. That there are actually people who KNOW Keith does this and are 'ok' with it, is sad on a great many levels.

[Chris Ingersoll]

Guest-Like said:

A journalist is one who presents material written for publication.

jour·nal·ist n.

1. One whose occupation is journalism.

jour·nal·ism n.

1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
2. Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
3. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
4. Newspapers and magazines.
5. An academic course training students in journalism.
6. Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal.

Contrast with:

au·thor n.

1a. The writer of a book, article, or other text.
1b. One who practices writing as a profession.

Since I don't think professional wrestling falls under "current interest or wide popular appeal", the book is not journalism and therefore Scott Keith is not a journalist.

[Joe]

Chris said:

jour·nal·ist n.

1. One whose occupation is journalism.

jour·nal·ism n.

1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
2. Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
3. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
4. Newspapers and magazines.
5. An academic course training students in journalism.
6. Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal.

Contrast with:

au·thor n.

1a. The writer of a book, article, or other text.
1b. One who practices writing as a profession.

Since I don't think professional wrestling falls under "current interest or wide popular appeal", the book is not journalism and therefore Scott Keith is not a journalist.

Whether Scott Keith is a journalist or an author is irrelevant. Writing about actual people and events and then taking liberites with the facts surrounding those people and events is of major significance.

If he is doing a parody of something, a la "Saturday Night Live" that is one thing. If he is pawning his work off as researched information, then it would seem accurate to describe him as a "liar" and a "fraud".

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

Chris said:

"Since I don't think professional wrestling falls under "current interest or wide popular appeal", the book is not journalism and therefore Scott Keith is not a journalist."

Pro wrestling doesn't fall in the area of 'current interest or wide popular appeal'? WWE is a publicly traded company who's Wrestlemania 20 event grossed 40 million dollars in just one day this year and performs in a USO type goodwill ambassador that entertains our troops abroad...yet it doesn't fall under the label of 'current interest or wide spread popular appeal'? I'd beg to differ.

Yet putting the issue of semantics aside, I can at the very least agree that Scott Keith is an 'author', so here's a statement for you:

The material in this thread shows Scott Keith is an 'author' who's statements often contradict reality. In other words he presents false information and revises history.

Care to dispute that?

[Chris Ingersoll]

Guest-Like said:

I can at the very least agree that Scott Keith is an 'author', so here's a statement for you:

The material in this thread shows Scott Keith is an 'author' who's statements often contradict reality. In other words he presents false information and revises history.

Care to dispute that?

Sure.

First of all, the material in this thread has shown simply that Scott Keith has presented erroneous information on occasion. Authors/journalists with much more responsibility to the truth than a fan writing about pro wrestling have been guilty of the same time and again, no matter how hard they try to ensure that this doesn't happen.

Show me proof that Scott Keith, himself, created that false information and/or revisionist history as opposed to finding (or being presented) that information in his research and assuming it to be the truth.

If he did and you can prove it, then he's a liar/fraud.

If he didn't and/or you can't, then he (and his editor) is guilty of poor fact-checking at least, and passing on misinformation at worst; quite possibly some shoddy research as well.

Secondly, 15 or so specific incidents of erroneous information out of two books and several web publications do not qualify as "frequently/often". If his entire body of work were fabricated information, then the "liar and fraud" label would be accurate..

The fact of the matter is that he has seemingly related the truth more often than not, usually as found by journalists like Meltzer and/or whatever contacts Scott may have in the industry (if any). I realize that when called on his mistakes that he hasn't immediately come out and admitted being wrong (except the baseball-related one, I believe), but that's hardly evidence of fraud.

All in all, the "evidence" in this thread points toward him being a sub-par journalist (I term I don't even find appropriate, but we'll go with it for now) at worst. Anything more borders on witch-hunting, IMO. If you don't like his work, fine. But unless you have proof that he willingly fabricates his information, you're just as guilty of making stuff up as you claim he is.