Feedbag Feedbag–03.22.2002

Scott's Feedback Feedbag - Positively Page Edition!

Okay, first of all I was watching the first season of OZ again on DVD last night, and I'm jonesing for the latest season now because the last we saw of the show up here was in October and saw Cloutier getting bricked into the kitchen before an explosion ended the season. (Man, that one ended in a giant disappointment.)  So if someone with all 8 eps of the season that just ended on tape would be nice enough to send them my way so I don't have to wait until FUCKING AUGUST for Showcase to get off their ass and show the new season, I'd be grateful. (I recently rewatched the whole series again on DVD because my wife was hooked on it and wanted to see the whole thing.  Still awesome.)   

On with the mailbag, as I got too many letters this time to make individual smart-ass remarks to each one, so I'll split this up over a few days.

First off, I got a SHITLOAD of e-mails like this one from Jeff Hunter...

"Hey look. I just read the Smackdown spoilers. I will tell you this: I

don't care if HHH-Undertaker is booked for Backlash, if Staph infection

books herself a-la Russo and Arquette to win the undisputed title Monday

night I will NEVER EVER watch WWf again. I am so tired of this holier-than

thou look at me booker crap. Let the damn wrestlers do their jobs. I don't

turn over to TNN and UPN to watch some rich bimbo bitch scream and shill all

night long. She can't even scream better than Daffney and that's saying

something. For the love of God, let the talent do what they're paid to do.

Let me say again: if it happens, I will NEVER EVER watch the WWF again.

Thank you for listening."

We shall see.

Now, on with the rebuttals from the readership...

From: "Rev. Kamimiaku"

Subject: either people are getting stupider, or i need to up my medication.

I was just cycling through your feedback feedbag... Man, am I glad I only do a shitty college radio show, and don't have a throng of apes that are willing to throw their feces at me every time I voice a dissenting opinion.

I don't agree with you all the time. Hell, I disagree with you on a lot of matches (Undertaker v. Flair, in my opinion, was pretty lame, and closer to 1.5 or 2 stars). I don't write to you, asking you to hang up your keyboard and watch Law and Order, however... I understand that we all have different opinions, and can leave it at that. If you said something that really got under my skin, I wouldn't read you. A simple solution.

So when will everyone shut the fuck up about you calling Hogan vs. Rock less than stellar? When will everyone stop sucking Hogan's cock? I guess the way I feel can be summed up with a bad analogy: I like fucking and was introduced to it by a hippie girl when I was younger. But just because I like having sex doesn't mean I'm going to continue to fuck her; I'm older now, and I realize she was a bad lay.

Hogan is a bad wrestler. I don't have to continue to like him, although he may be one of the reasons I got into wrestling when I was 10.

Man, that analogy seems pretty homosexual when juxtaposed with the idea of wrestling. But you get the point.

Hogan vs. Rock was a boring match. If anyone doubts this, watch it muted. Commentary seemed lazy (JR is making Michael Cole almost tolerable with his lack of effort in calling matches lately), match was slow, and the ONLY thing that made everybody hold this match up as "great" is the fact that the crowd was jazzed.

And why the fuck is so great about Hyatte? He can't write.

Fucking pissed,

-rev. k

From: Brian Riddle

Subject: They just don't get it

Mista Keith what is up? I am a huge fan of your work and I tend to agree with alot of what you say and when I don't agree, unlike most of the readers, I don't bash you for having your own opinion. Im writing, hoping that you post this, to all those idiots who ask you "Why do you even watch wrestling?" Well morons the reason he doesn't just "turn off the TV" is because he is a REAL wrestling fan. If he just turned the channel he would be what all those thousands of fans are that McMahon lost last year: a casual fan. Just like I have just as much to complain about as Scott does but I don't stop watching because I'm too much of a fan to stop.

Keep up the great work Keith and I am awaiting your next book!

From: chenerytrevor

Just a quick point, in order to get Triple H over as decent babyface why

doesn't he step back into the DX-HHH character which everyone got a kick out

of? With the whole nostalgia thang going down, 4 years ago is practically

yesterday to the bookers.

Just a thought

Chen

Scott Sez: Because that was a mid-card character, which is the reason why it was ditched to begin with. (Ironically, he would go back to that character several times, to diminishing returns each time.) 

From: Eric Hunt

Subject: in response to your "faithful" AOL readers

Scott,

First off, quick question. Were Brock Lesnar and Val Venis separated at birth? Seriously. I had heard of but never seen the guy before, and when he showed up on RAW, I thought Val had mutated or something. They even do the same teeth grinding thing. Anywho, after reading all the complaining of the AOL gomers, I had to reply. Now, I can only speak for myself, but I think you may agree with me on this. The reason some of us get all bitter about WWF programming (I don't buy PPVs - especially those featuring feuds built around shampoo) is that we've seen the WWF do SO much better. So we go in to an episode of RAW or SmackDown wanting to see the high caliber stuff we've seen in the past (say, two years ago) and we get pap. Gravy bowl matches spring to mind. We also get misuse of talent. Instead of seeing Tajiri and say, Kidman work a hot ten minute semi-classic, complete with GREEN MIST~!, which I always mark out for, we get a two minute squash of Tajiri by [insert name here] and a five minute handicap match with either the Big Show or the Dudley Boys. See, it's a build up of disappointment, folks - we know they can do better because we've seen them do better.

Personally, I don't watch RAW or SmackDown if something else more interesting is on. The last two weeks, I've been watching "The American Embassy" on Mondays. It's okay, although the "fish out of water" thing won't last much longer. Hey, I'm rambling a little so I'll finish up with some advice for those screaming AOL users. Instead of whining and complaining that Scott doesn't like WWF programming or PPVs, find out what he does like, and compare. You're already on your computer, you're already on TheSmarks.com, so just click over to the archives, and select on of Scott's rants from pretty much anything in the year 2000. Read it, rent it, watch it and see the WWF that the rest of us know and love. Personally I recommend Backlash 2K. Not just because it's the only recent PPV I've seen (nope didn't pay for it), but because it rocked the house - better feuds, better angles, better matches. When you've done that, you'll know where Scott is coming from (or are you afraid of that?) and when you disagree with him, you may (MAY) be able to sound a little more intelligent about it.

Y2Soup - sometime Smarkboard poster

From: Ian Sewell

Subject: Positive feedback on Wrestlemania review

I noticed in your latest mailbag column that there are a fair share of readers that disagree with your review of the Hogan/Rock match so I've decided to defend your view with my own analysis.

I haven't seen Wrestlemania XVIII and probably won't bother to but from the various play-by-play recaps I've read it's quite obvious that Hogan/Rock is not a **** classic and certainly is not one of the best matches of all time on par with Steamboat/Flair or Mankind/Michaels. When I read a recap of a classic match I can tell it's a good match without a star ratings just by seeing which moves were used, in what order, and in what context. I can be entertained just by reading a recap of Hell in the Cell I.

However I find reading Rock/Hogan recaps boring. I can't see the crowd reaction but only the actual match itself and all I see are a bunch of trademark Rocky Raw moves, choking, back scratches, punching, and a good finish. The finish is a classic and would be the exact type of finish a ***** match would have but the build up to that finish is nothing spectacular and certainly isn't anything you wouldn't see in a Rock/Bradshaw match. But people only remember the finish and that's why they declare it a classic. It's like an ECW match where they spend the whole match blowing spots and resting only to have a kickass, creative, well booked finish that earns them classic status amoung the ECW fanbase.

If one wants to truly see how good the Rock/Hogan match is they should read a recap and visualize each move in their head and see if they still enjoy it without the crowd noise. Chance are they will see it for what it really is. A good idea would be to read the Main Event feature at 411 where Carlos Mahuad gives his recap of the match and compare to his other recaps of great matches. Rock/Hogan doesn't compare. If it was The Rock and Horace Hogan doing the same moves with the same crowd heat no one would consider it a classic

On an unrelated note I recently rented Raw Prime Cuts which featured the famous Michaels/Janetty match that was widely considered the 1993 match of the year. In one of your colisium rants you said that it was considered match of the year but you didn't give your own star rating. I was wondering what you would have given it. Personally I thought it was good but more like ****1/4 than *****.

Scott Sez: In terms of RAW matches it was about ****.

Jeff McGinnis comes out of hiding to opine...

Just wanted to express my support on your opinion of the whole WM/Hogan

deal. Honestly, I've felt like I've been trapped in a bizarro world

myself ever since Sunday - all of a sudden, after one "surprisingly

good" match from the guy, the entire Net, which has been spending weeks

- nay, YEARS - slagging Hogan as one of the most deteriorated,

manipulative, self-serving guys in the business suddenly thinks he's God

once again. I just don't get it. Sure, the Toronto crowd popped big. But

some factors need to be accounted for: One, it was basically his first

match back. Two, we're in Canada, which, as you have noted, has a

tendancy to love a guy for life if he's ever over in the WWF. Three, a

lot of the time, nothing gets bigger pops than nostalgia. But nostalgia

doesn't last.

Case in point - one of the biggest pops the Big Show ever got was when

he mimmicked Hogan for that match with Angle back at Backlach 2 years

ago. But you think the gimmick would have stayed fresh if he had done

the same thing every night? No, the fun was it was a nice little shot of

something you once thought was cool. But we all mature, and find new

things we love. The Hulkamaniacs of yesteryear have grown up, and while

a little trip to the past might be a nice place to visit, I doubt we

wanna live there.

And I wonder if all these Net pundits who are falling all over

themselves, worshipping the master that is Hogan, have stopped to

consider the implications of what will come to pass if the WWF starts

believing the hype, too. What happened the last time a company thought

Hogan was a savior and built their product around him? Three letters:

WCW. Do they think about all the young talent who got buried under the

almighty weight of the Orange Goblin? The negative impact he had on the

careers of guys who FINALLY got to flourish in the WWF, and now are

looking at another draught of being caught in a red-and-yellow shadow?

Do they honestly think that Hogan will be able to produce as a performer

anything NEAR what happened at WM on a regular basis, comparable to what

a Jericho, a Benoit, a Rock, or even a HHH can?

Shit, I feel like Rage Against the Machine all of a sudden: WAKE UP!!!!

In any event, keep up the good work, and talk at ya later...

-Jeff McGinnis

(This guy definitely gets it, as the kids say.) 

From: TheGame873

Subject: OMG Keith, it's POSITIVE Feedback!

Scott,

I don't understand people writing to you and complaining about giving a match a bad rating or something like that. I mean, they tell you 'if you don't like it so much, then stop watching!' but if they don't like you, they should stop reading! Plus, where did you write anywhere that your opinions were what everyone had to think? I mean, if they think Hogan/Rock was ****, then they should say it was **** and not care what you think. I've done this numerous times, like for example, I thought Angle-Austin from Vengeance was ****. You gave it ***1/2 i believe, but you don't see me writing hate mail. Sure, it isn't as big of a difference as ** to **** is, but you get my point. Just getting this matter off my chest. Keep up the great work.

~James Allan

From: Glen Sprigg <

Subject: The SmarKdown Rant - March 21 / 2002

Well, after reading the feedback you got for your Wrestlemania Rant, I'd like to take this opportunity to agree with everyone who called you nasty names. After all, who do you think you are, expressing your own opinion like that? Damn it, this is the twenty-first century! You're not allowed to have your own opinion, especially about wrestling! You've got a lot of nerve, mister. When Hogan gets the ultimate face pop, you're supposed to cheer right along with everyone! When Edge and Booker T have a fight over a shampoo commercial, you're supposed to feel the excitement of the building dramatic tension! When Stephanie shrieks like Shiela Copps on helium, you're supposed to stand up and applaud!

Okay, scratch the last part. But you're an internet wrestling columnist! We don't want opinion, we want mindless drivel! That's what Vince and his daughter have been feeding us for a whole year now, and we're used to it! We want more! More, dammit! Vinnie Mac is God! Bret screwed Sunny! 'What?' is the greatest catchphrase since 'Pharoah, let my people go!' Stephanie's implants deserve Oscars!

I'll stop sounding like Michael Cole now and try to communicate like a sane human being. I sat in a bar watching Wrestlemania, and I felt the old thrill when Hogan came out, when he hulked up, and when he posed after the match. Sue me, I enjoyed watching him when I was a kid, and this was a great throwback to the days of yore. And when I read your rant, I managed to not be offended by it. Imagine that.

So, I'll make you a deal. I'll be secure enough to handle your distaste for the Rock-Hogan match, and you be man enough to state your own opinion irregardless of the mindless fucknuts who want to tear you a new asshole for having one. Fair enough?

Oh, and if J.R. thinks that Hogan got Rocket Richard-like pops in Montreal, he doesn't know sweet fuck all about Montreal and hockey. Beliveau would get pops like that; if Richard were alive today, he would get pops that make Wrestlemania III look like the WWA's last PPV. Hogan doesn't have a riot named after him. Okay, if he wins the World Title again, there might be one, but let's hope that doesn't happen. It was great to watch him and Rock, but I'm not interested in turning the clock back that much.

If we all liked the same thing, there wouldn't be 31 flavors.

Glen Sprigg

And on that note, we end part one of the Postively Page Feedback Feedbag!

Part two later this weekend!