Wrestling Books

Having read the autorized version about Stone Cold Steve Austin, I found this book to be very dissappointing. I think I bought this book used for .49 cent. I'm still not sure that I got my moneys worth.

This a real great book even though Austin is gone at of WWE you
can still find a "lot" of interesting things about him for only
A well worth deal hear is a brief parts of the book.

This is the real story of Steve Austin and his meteoric rise to
the top in today's hottest and wildest entertainment. With his
bold take-no-prisoners style,this bullet-headed boss of the ring demands respect-and get it every time. From ECW to WCW and WWE,
Steve Austin delivers the goods, leaving his dazed opponents stone cold!

chapter 1-Rattlesnake Fever
chapter 2-Texas Tornado
chapter 3-The Bottom Line
chapter 4-The Hollywood Blond
chapter 5-"Stone Cold" is Born
chapter 6-King of the Ring
chapter 7-Rattlesnake at Rest
chapter 8-Austin Powers
chapter 9-Austin Has Balls
chapter 10-That's Sports Entertainment
chapter 11-The Lovely Debra
chapter 12-Injuries
chapter 13-Tomorrow Never Dies
trivia quiz-How Well Do You Know the Rattlesnake.

_________________________________________________________________
if you do not have this book you "should" get it right now or some time in the future.

The Texas Rattlesnake is a story about Stone Cold Steve Austin's life. His name when he was born was Steven Anderson. His father left him, so he took his stepfather's last name. It is mostly about his career in wrestling.
I think this book is good if someone likes wrestling. If Stone Cold actually said anything to the author, the book may have been better. It is a good book to me, but some people might not like it.

The Texas Rattlesnake is a story about Stone Cold Steve Austin's life. His name when he was born was Steven Anderson. His father left him, so he took his stepfather's last name. It is mostly about his career in wrestling.
I think this book is good if someone likes wrestling. If Stone Cold actually said anything to the author, the book may have been better. It is a good book to me, but some people might not like it.

This pocket paperback can be polished off in about 2 or 3 hours or so, and as noted elsewhere does not offer many scoops or insights into SCSA's career. I think if it had been written by him or on behalf of him instead of generally about him, it would have been more entertaining. The multiple choice test at the end was unnecessary. The book does offer a quick run-through of his career up until early 2000 when he was on the sidelines recovering from major neck surgery. It was presumably published before his most recent PPV appearance, when he clearly was not at his earlier fitness level. There is very little new material not already available elsewhere. There could have been a few more photographs thrown in for good measure. At this price it could be considered a must-read for serious SCSA fans, but for the casual wrestling fan it might be better to wait until something more comprehensive and duly authorized comes along. Recommended with reservations.

A man who gets popular by cursing, drinking, and using lewd body language gets a biography meant for little kids. This man is not what children should be learning about. But I sound like an old lady..

The entire book was in character. It was basically the story of his wrestling career dumbed down. Too many good things were left out. Too many lies were put in. This book was horrible and I'm afraid to read Ross' OTHER wrestling biographies.

This book is one of the best books I have ever read in my life! It tells all about his life in wwf and his outside life. It really tells that he is the best wrestler in the world!

This author does. Or at least, that's how he wrote his book. I understand he is writing for 9-12-year-olds, but basically his book fails in every regard.

First, it's simply an overwritten list of his matches and angles. It has almost nothing to do with the man himself.

Second, what little Dan Ross did say about Austin was about his character, not him as a person. However, the author presented the information as if it was actually Austin himself, and not the characters he has played over the years. It even blames some of the front offices' angle decisions on his "arrogance" and other traits that were his characters', and most likely had nothing to do with what was actually going on behind the scenes.

Third, he got major facts wrong, like where Austin is from (it's NOT Austin, Texas!) and how he got the name Austin (it's NOT because he's "from" Austin, Texas!).

The only saving grace is the pictures. There are a few I haven't seen before. But inexplicably, there are actually more pictures of other wrestlers than Austin himself. Do I detect someone trying to pad out their book?

I wasn't expecting a lot from this book, but it didn't deliver the bare minimum. The author assumes the fan reading the book is a moron, and he wrote accordingly. If I were anyone looking for a book about Steve Austin, I would wait and see if the WWF puts out his (ghost-written) autobiography in 2000 or 2001. No matter how bad it might be, it would have to be better than this junk. It is a waste of money.

This book reads more like a pamphlet, with a very basic summary of a man's career. The selected stories are spotty at best. Obviously the Author was more interesting in making money than chronicling one of the most famous performers in pro wrestling, especially considering the many other 'The Story Of' "books" he's done. After finishing it in 15 minutes, it reminded me of one of my son's 5th grade book reports.
As someone else mentioned, there are also many errors. The pictures are more valuable than the knowledge contained within it.

I think Steve Austin is a great wrestler. He is my favorite wrestler. I loved the book, it showed everything about him. I think everyone should read the book.

The book's title suggests Drs. Boyd and Eddy have wrestled with the dilemma of the historicity of Jesus. I beg to differ. Their book is anything but an unbiased objective wrestling with this perplexing question with which many conscientious theologians do wrestle. This book rehearses only the Baptist arguments while dismissing alleged contrary arguments to allege that Jesus was a historical figure, not a legend.

The authors assert biblical accuracy because of the quantity of New Testament manuscript attestations. They say, "We possess roughly 5,500 ancient Greek manuscripts." Dr Bart Ehrman, noted theologian trained in the Baptist tradition gives a more forthright perspective saying, "what is striking is that we find no two of these copies (except in the smallest fragments) agree in all of their wording. There can be only one reason for this: the scribes who copied the texts changed them. Nobody knows how often they changed them, because no one has yet been able to count all of the differences. Some estimates put the number at around 200,000, others 300,000.....there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. "The New Testament" page 481 by Dr. Bart Ehrman. Quality, not quantity should be the measure of manuscript attestation and by this measure the New Testament comes up severely lacking.

The authors believe the gospel writers are eyewitnesses. If so, I wish they'd explain how Luke was an eyewitness or found an eyewitness of Gabriel telling Mary she would conceive. Who was the eyewitness of Jesus' temptation by the devil? Who was the eyewitness of Jesus' blood sweating prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane while all the disciples slept? Who was the eyewitness of the Sanhedrin's interrogation of Jesus or Pilate's private questioning of Jesus while the disciples fled? The many gospel incidents where no eyewitnesses were present leads to reasonably suspect a 2nd or 3rd century scribe filled in the story with what he imagined, i.e. fiction.

If Matthew and Luke were eyewitnesses, why did they have to plagiarize 90% of Mark? Then when Matthew and Luke did add original information such as the genealogies of Jesus, the respective genealogies are laughably contradictory and incoherent.

How could eyewitnesses have Joseph, Mary, and Jesus in two different places at the same time? Matthew has Joseph, Mary, and Jesus fleeing to Egypt immediately after Jesus' birth for fear of Herod's plan to slaughter all children under the age of two. Luke is unaware of Herod's death squad and has Mary wait out her forty days of purification in Bethlehem. They then present Jesus at the temple in Jerusalem where Simeon and Anna prophesy over Jesus, every one rejoices and Jesus' family returns to Nazareth.

The authors present Josephus' Jesus Testimony as a reputable non-Christian reference to Jesus' historicity. However, the authors ignore the following reasons reputable scholars reject it as a later fraudulent insertion.

First, Josephus' writing style was to write chapter upon chapter about the most insignificant people whereas Boyd and Eddy would have us believe Josephus changed his writing style and wrote a miniscule four sentences about this Jesus crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Secondly, the Jesus Testimony is totally out of context. The preceding and following paragraphs describe Romans killing Jews. The alleged Jesus testimony of a "wise man ...who wrought surprising feats...Pilate...condemned him to be crucified" is inserted between these two paragraphs, an incongruous illogical place for such a happy testimony.

Thirdly, the first sentence of the paragraph following the Jesus testimony states, "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..." Why would Josephus call the Jesus Testimony "another sad calamity"? No, Romans killing Jews was the "sad calamity" in the preceding paragraph and Romans killing Jews in the following paragraph is obviously "another sad calamity."

Who in all probability inserted the Jesus testimony? Who would be a better candidate than Eusebius, the Father of Church History, who acknowledged,"however, it may be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness." (Evangelical Demonstration Book III, page 124). Eusebius' excuses lying, "It will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment." The Preparation of the Gospel, volume 2, page 619, published by Baker Books. Eusebius, the Father of Church History sets the standard for much of what passes for Christian apologetics.

A major oversight of these authors is not mentioning Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (20 BCE - 45 CE). Philo was a Hellenistic Jew living in Alexandria. Origin preserved Philo's theological writings, which have astounding parallels to John's gospel and Paul's epistles (thoroughly set forth in Benson's "The Origins of Christianity and the Bible" Chapters 25 and 26). Philo wrote about a God of love, Jews who sin go to hell, gentiles who come to God go to heaven, God is a trinity, God creates through His word, God holds all things together by His word, the word is the first begotten Son of God, God draws man through His word, the word is the appointed judge of man. Sound familiar? Philo was contemporaneous with Jesus, yet in all Philo's writings he does not once mention anything about a Jewish Messiah in Jerusalem, a Jesus of Nazareth, a crucifixion, a resurrection, Jewish saints coming out of their graves, an earthquake, or an eclipse. Philo's silence is deafening!

Philo's writings preceded both the epistles and the gospels. The many and profound similarities suggest Philo's strong influence, possibly plagiarized contributions to the gospel of John and much of Paul's thought. It seems more than coincidental that the oldest fragment of the gospel of John was found in Philo's home country of Egypt.

Why do these authors fail to mention the first century Galilean historian Justus of Tiberius? He wrote a history of Palestine covering the time of Christ's alleged existence. Justus' work has perished, but Photius, a ninth century Christian scholar, who was acquainted with it, says: "He (Justus) makes no mention of Christ, of what things that happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did" (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33).

The authors chapter "Excavating Jesus" is simply superficial. Archaeological investigations have proved Nazareth was vacant from the Assyrian siege in 730 BCE until at least the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Artifacts found in Nazareth are 2nd and 3rd century Roman, not Hellenistic as promoted by the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of the Annunciation where the angel Gabriel allegedly announced to the Virgin Mary her pending conception stands atop Roman burial tombs. Even assuming Nazareth existed at the time of Mary's conception, would a devoted Jew have lived in proximity to corpses, a violation of Jewish laws of purity (Num 5:3)? If Nazareth was not settled until the 2nd century, how could there be a 1st century Jesus of Nazareth?

Drs. Boyd and Eddy argue that the supernatural experiences portrayed in the gospels are no excuse to reject the gospel's plausibility. They say, "you will find that the world is full of reported experiences of the miraculous." Yes, televangelists Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn, and Pat Robertson continuously report miracles (?).

Drs. Boyd and Eddy could quickly solve the dilemma of Jesus' historicity and avoid all the work of writing this book by simply acting upon the eyewitness reported words of Jesus, "Truly, truly I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son" (John 14: 12-13).

Allegedly, the Son of God said what He meant and meant what He said. If so, Jesus clearly defined what it means to believe in Him. The evidence for believing in Jesus demands doing the works Jesus did. If Drs. Boyd and Eddy are believers according to Jesus' definition they would heal the blind and the deaf, raise the dead, turn water into wine, cast demons out of the demon oppressed into pigs, etc., etc., etc.: CASE CLOSED! Jesus is proven to be not only a historical figure but also the resurrected Savior who truly is "the same yesterday, today and forever" (Heb 13:6). Drs. Boyd and Eddy can proclaim James' "prayer of faith" and heal whoever is sick (James 5:14-15).

It would be great fun to sit in on a conversation with Dr. Boyd, Dr. Eddy, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Jefferson wrote America's Declaration of Independence. Paine's Common Sense written in 1776 inspired the American Revolution. Both Jefferson and Paine were also students of Christianity and the bible.

Jefferson said in an undated letter to a Dr. Woods, "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

Paine concluded, "The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and admits of no conclusion." The Age of Reason, Part II (1796).

No American belittles the intellectual capacity of a Jefferson or Paine yet Drs. Boyd and Eddy politely refer to such "legendary-Jesus theorists" and skeptics as "radical" with "clever" arguments.

If the reader desires further consideration to the question of Jesus, Lord or Legend, they must read "The Origins of Christianity and the Bible" by Andrew Benson, "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty (Google Doherty's website), "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" and "Misquoting Jesus" by Dr Bart Ehrman, "The Myth of Nazareth" by Rene' Salm (www.nazarethmyth.info), "The Jesus the Jews Never Knew" by Frank Zindler, "Deconstructing Jesus", "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" and "The Pre-Nicene New Testament" by Dr. Robert Price. Both Ehrman and Price were trained in the Baptist tradition. Excepting The Myth of Nazareth, all are available through Amazon.

I'm sure Drs. Boyd and Eddy are fine Christians but in my humble opinion they have busied themselves with stuffing round pegs in square holes.

Whether you are a devoted Christian or not, this is not a book to rely on as to whether there was indeed a Jesus of Nazareth, and whether he was really the Son of God or not. The book starts by saying that the Buddha and Krishna were legendary figures, thereby ridiculing billions of non-Christians, and then going on to say that Jesus was "different," i.e. was "real." None of their arguments throughout the book is convincing by any means.

Book after book about Jesus, and authors who try their best to show that Jesus was not only historical, but really was divine, fail miserably. Deepak Chopra has a new way of looking at this, in his "Third Jesus," saying that aside from a historical Jesus and a divine Jesus, there was a Jesus who taught the mystical truths that we are all divine. For Chopra, what is important is the fact that Jesus was pointing to our own souls rather than to himself.

The truth has been hidden from people for centuries and furiously defended: the truth that Jesus was a mythical figure like all "gods" before him. The truth is that myth always seems like it is real. Myth teaches in the form of a story. Myth is mysteriously beautiful. Myth captivates. Myth mesmerizes. For hundreds and thousands of years, myth has kept us enchanted. The myths of Krishna, Buddha and Jesus, as for instance shown in "The Suns of God" by Acharya S and the Jesus myth revealed in the several books of Timothy Freke, starting with "The Jesus Mysteries." For a billion Hindus, Krishna is real; he was not only historical, but divine-just like Jesus for Christians. No different. Once enlightened, we realize that these mythical characters represent our own inner spirit. But even then the beauty of the myth is not lost; it maintains its charm and forms the foundation of religion. Realizing the myth is the beginning of peace and wisdom.

There is no future for peace on earth as long as the likes of the authors of this book Boyd and Eddy keep plugging on, insisting that one myth was real and the others fake. In "Lord or Legend? Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma," the authors are really wrestling with their own credibility.

Lord or Legend? is written by two avowed Christians, one a pastor and the other a professor of biblical studies at a Christian university. Needless to say, they conclude that Jesus is Lord, and not legend, and along the way they try to justify their beliefs by advancing historical arguments for the case of Jesus as Lord. They claim "the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the portrayal of Jesus within the Gospels is historically accurate (p. 13)."

The book is extremely well organized, but at its core, there are some fundamental errors which take this book out of the realm of history and into the realm of faith. For example, Boyd and Eddy uncritically assign the writing of the Gospels to the 1st century, and then conclude that the proximity of the writing of the gospels to the life of Jesus favors the historicity of Jesus. Of course, this neglects the considerable evidence that not all the gospels are 1st century texts, and indeed, there is convincing evidence that only Mark is a 1st century text. Hence, the argument for proximity is considerably weakened.

Boyd and Eddy consistently maintain that the Jewish people in 1st century Israel were exclusionary, and thus the Greek legends could not have influenced the story of Jesus. Of course, this ignores the Sadducees, who according to Josephus, were a major influence at this time, and who were decidedly non-exclusionary. In fact, downright Hellenistic. It also ignores the influence of Stoicism which is clearly present in the gospels and which enjoyed an empire-wide popularity in the 1st century.

In a curious chapter about archeology, Body and Eddy believe that ancient jars with a cross on them found in Bethsaida and dated to the mid 1st century establishes Christianity as a well functioning religion by that time. The fact is, however, that the sign of the early Christians was the fish, not the cross, and it was not until centuries later that the icon became the cross.

In a similar fashion, Body and Eddy argue that the finding of the remains of a crucified man is proof "against the argument...that victims of crucifixion would have been granted a proper burial in a private family tomb (p. 140)." Yet the fact that thousands were crucified and only one body has ever been found, attests to the rarity of this practice, and the fact that the only crucified remains do not conform to the gospel accounts (hands pierced) surely must give pause.

This is not a bad book, but it certainly isn't a history book, and I have some problems with what appears to be an attempt to masquerade as an historical account. There's lots of good material here and the Christian apologetic arguments are all well presented.

First of all, I should state my bias. I was Born Again in 1962, and am striving to be as pleasing as possible to my wonderful Lord Jesus Christ. Over the years, I have read perhaps a dozen apologetic books. It was a great pleasure to read "Lord or Legend?". It is one of the best, and perhaps the best, apologetic book, I have ever read. I can see that the authors spent much time researching this topic, and there are many new points I had not heard of before, such as the fact that the Four Gospels arose in an orally dominant culture, and there are good reasons for believing that oral transmission can actually be more accurate than written transmission. As the authors state: "But this discovery of the crucial role of individual tradents suggests that we can no longer conceive of the traditional material about Jesus being transmitted in the early church apart from the strong influence of original eyewitnesses. This renders it virtually impossible to conceive of the oral traditions in the early church veering too far from the historical events observed by eyewitnesses." The book is very well written with copious footnotes (13 pages of footnotes!), and comes with an "Index of Scripture and Ancient Writings" and a good General Index. I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors. If you are a born-again Christian (and there are really no other kinds of Christians), you will love this book. It carefully and meticulously puts to rest any lingering doubts about the historicity of the Son of God. You will be blessed by reading this book as I was. A well earned and well deserved 5 stars! I can't wait to read their next book.

"The Tables Are All Broken" is the first wrestling book that I have seen that was written exclusively for the hardcore wrestling fan. It is generally comprised of three sections: Recaps, Parodies, and Insights.

The Recaps section does just that - re-lives writings that appeared in the Pro Wrestling Torch newsletter, from the last days of WCW to the current storylines (at the time) of the World Wrestling Federation (now World Wrestling Entertainment). While it is interesting to read some of the happenings of that time, this part of the book can wear on, especially if you're not really interested in things that happened years ago.

While the title may lead you to believe this book is all gloom and doom, it's actually just a reference to one of Pat's witty and enjoyable song re-writes that he's become well known for at the Pro Wrestling Torch Web site, and many of these are present in the Parodies. Pat is very good at these, and there are some immensely entertaining examples given here in the book.

The Insights are the part of the book I enjoyed the most. Pat writes in a style that does not assume that the reader is a moron, as is the case with many other wrestling columnists. Pat's columns are always informative and insightful, and they will help you to look at a topic or situation from all sides. This is the real meat and potatoes of the book - I just wish there was more of it.

If you're just a passive fan of wrestling, this may not be the book for you, but any hardcore fan should definately pick it up. I hope Pat's next book focuses more on his own insights and opinions. These are the insights which caused Rolling Stone magazine to label him the "Internet Smark Writer Of The Year", and I believe a full book of these would be extremely enjoyable for every type of wrestling fan. I eagerly look forward to his next book.

I expected some new content, but I'd read most of this before... it's cheaper than prining all his old articles and having it bound yourself, but... why would you want to? The guy can't write and this is the first bad wrestling book I have read. The first part of the book describes a couple of WCW Thunder programmes minute by minute - Goldberg said he wanted to win the title and then Sting was talking to Scott Steiner and then there was an ad break and... GRRRRRRRRR!!! Who wants to read 300 pages of fantasy booking from 2 years ago?? Dull, dull dull!!

This guy is such a geek and I feel like a schmuck for buying this crud!!Get the Dynamite Kid book or Meltzer's tributes instead! Or do yourself a favour and get the Figure 4 newsletter - written by someone with a little personality!! This book is DREADFUL.

This is a horrible book. No flow to any of it.
It is just a bunch of old columns thrown together, despite outward appearences that would lead one to believe they were getting a book detailing the rise and fall of the recent wrestling scene.

The song paradies were terrible and there were lots of them.
There really was little to no substance to this book at all.
Go read Blassie's or Heenan's book for behind the scenes tales and fun stories. Go read Scott Kieth's book for match reviews.
Go read anything else if you just need to pass some time.

Okay, if you don't like McNeil, or the Pro Wrestling Torch, or you've already read all of this stuff before, you should probably skip the book. Some of it is even online now, if you know where to look. It remeinded me of Dave Barry's books, where he collects his old columns and slaps them together.

I hadn't read most of this before, and I thought it was entertaining. The song parody chapter is hysterical. McNeil should stick to comedy, and not be an analyst. The fake pay-per-view in the book with DDP getting murdered was also classic stuff.

The Torch should do another book like this one, except with Bruce Mitchell's columns.

unable to give a review of the item since I did not read the book, it was a gift to a grandchild

Like the movie itself,this novelization of "The Marine" is good escapist fun for guys.Sure,the plot is ridiculous,but then it's supposed to be.The whole point of both the book and the movie is the action sequences,and
they are top-notch onscreen and in print.And yeah,the "bad guys" are nothing more than comic buffoons,but they are intended to be that way.
But I really liked John and Kate.Surprisingly,for the leading characters in an action story,they had some depth to them.John Cena and Kelly Carlson
are GREAT in the movie!So all in all,this is a good action story that moves swiftly and works up a good deal of suspense.I recommend it for
most guys,and especially young adults.

Rudy Josephs novelization of the movie proves what happens when an author assumes there has been authentication checks when the movie was made. I knew I was in trouble by page 22, after the hero John Triton had vanquished 9 (count 'em) 9 armed terrorists single handedly to save 3 Special Ops Marines. (There is no such unit at present, although the 'Corps is building one.) After his discharge for disobeying an order (for which there was no trial), he returns home to his loving wife. It was like watching a train wreck, you don't want to look, but you just have to, so I pressed on.

The story continues with John and Kate camping, but running into bad guys who snatch his wife as a hostage.

As our hero chases the baddies who have kidnapped his wife, even the most casual firearms reader is left scratching his/her head. He has a revolver, but the hero hears the click, click "on an empty clip" (huh?). During the car chase John's car has the top ripped off (ala Smokey and the Bandit), suffers a front-end explosion when baddy bullets hit an engine oil line (huh?) and when the baddy car is disabled, John's trashed car, spinning left to right, flies over the top of it (ala Dukes of Hazard). No problem, in about the 1/8 second this is happening, the baddies climb out of their car and machine gun John's spinning vehicle.

Whew. Ok, John deals with all that, but now he is on foot armed only with a knife. He is put upon by 2 armed dope manufacturers and overpowers them both (of course), and casually wanders off to continue the hunt, not bothering to take one or both of the vanquished doper's weapons. John is truly amazing.

The hunt goes on with our hero getting blown out of various buildings but survives them all as he pursues the kidnappers, but I think I'll just leave Superman on steroids here; you get the general drift.

One could walk out of the movie (which carries the same name) and just say "Hey, it's just a Hollywood movie", but I would respectfully submit that the written word should have a higher standard. I would be remiss in criticizing an author without suggesting corrective action, and here it is: I blame the author and publishing house for not having the book proof read by a military person (not necessarily an expert, a Marine or even a veteran) and someone with at least a high school knowledge of physics and some common sense.

Although I respect Josephs's effort, I cannot recommend bothering to read this book.

As an avid wrestling fan and historian for over 25 years, I can tell you FOR A FACT that Nikita Koloff was NEVER a World Heavyweight Champion in any legitimate major wrestling organization. The NWA and UWF TV titles can never be considered World titles by even the most twisted logic. The fact that the description of this book flat out LIES about his status is quite troubling.

Got this for a friend who was out of the country for a while, so I ended up reading it first :) Good, easy to read advice to boost your self estime and help your drive towards success.

The author provides 2 years of WWE (April, 2003 to March, 2005+), mainly through the pay per view shows. It is somewhat interesting to re-visit the WWE plot lines and matches. I do agree with the author's negative opinions of Hulk Hogan, Brock Lesnar & Goldberg. These overpaid guys did little more than throw clubbing punches.

The author has little good to say about the WWE. His rants against George W. Bush, Republicans and conservatives have no place in a wrestling book. He dishes the WWE divas & female wrestlers and probably WWE's humor. He fails to realize that wrestling is an entertainment sport. We want the whole package. Nothing's finer than a bikini battle royal. Scott Keith's view of wrestling would get old in a hurry. I would trust the WWE more than Scott Keith to get it right.

Another problem with the book is the focus on just the pay per views. The TV shows attract far more viewers, but they are ignored. Then at the end of the book the author says the WWE is no longer worth 2 hours of his life each week to watch RAW. Why the author so angry?

If you can set aside all of the author's prejudices, then you have a book you can glance at during TV commercials.

I'm a big Scott Keith fan, in fact, in the past, I've sent him video tapes of wrestling shows, just to be able to read a review from him. His rants are spectacular. BUT, in comparison to his other books, this is a bit of a letdown. I don't know what it is, but this book dragged as I read it, instead of making me want to read more and more. Not much new was covered in the book, it's just a review of the events for each month of the time period covered. Keith really doesn't give too many strong opinions outside of the stuff you hear every critic say, like "Triple H has too much power", or "Benoit wasn't pushed enough". I expected a lot more when I ordered this one and am sorry to say I was letdown.

I've read quite a few books about wrestling and this one is just awful. The author is a little canadian crybaby with a pathetic school boy crush on Trish Stratus. There is nothing really new or exclusive to this book, it is more of a compilation of his crappy blogs. The title is very misleading, all he does is complain about the WWE and does it in monthly PPV order. Honestly don't waste your time, read The Death of WCW instead, by far one of the best wrestling books available.

Although the things discussed in this book has been discussed in other books, this book is worth a read.

This book is not only horrible, but written by a man that has confessed to having sexual intercourse with 12 year olds on various websites throughout the internet. This is horrible and disgusting; the fact that it's even sold on this website has me questioning Amazon's ability to monitor the products they distribute.

For as old as this book is, it is still pretty good. It hits alot of key areas including different moves, conditioning, techniques, and nutrition. I would reccomend a newer book such as coaching wrestling succssfully by Dan Gable. It has alot more up-to-date information.

I wasn't thrille