Stale commentary.

[RH23]

Seriously, don't blame the announcers, its not their fault that their so boring. Vince doesn't want them to be faces or heels anymore, he wants to make them call the match right down the middle with very little if any biased calls. I do agree that the announcing isn't all that great but I disagree on blaming them. Blame Vince, would you want somebody screaming in your ear all the time like he did to Mick Foley? I doubt it...

 

[GameOver]

I appreciate and agree with your thoughts on the commentary situation, in that Vince's new philosophy that "commentators who show excitement or argue with each other take concentration away from the in-ring action" is ridiculous. Face/Heel broadcast teams had the ability to bring life to a broadcast. They made boring matches fun to listen to. It was just another tool that WWE once had to turn a boring match into a good one, and a good match into a great one.

Just listening to Heenan and Monsoon at Royal Rumble 1992 or Wrestlemania 8 were perfect examples. They argued for virtually the entire broadcast, with Heenan belting out one-liners left and right ... and both of those broadcasts were actually better with their banter than if we had replaced it with today's commentary style.

However, as far as the managers go, the same mentality applies on the part of Vince, that they distract from the action in the ring ... in his misguided philosophy, of course. This was specifically reported on why they removed Daivari from the Great Khali several years ago, because it was reported that Vince felt that "Khali having a manager took people's attention away from the Great Khali, as a wrestler."

Now, a while later, they brought in Ranjin Singh as only a Translator, because they finally figured out that Khali couldn't communicate to the audience due to not speaking English, and therefore he needed someone ... however when they first brought him in, he was not at ringside. Again, because that would be "distracting" at ringside. Then, he came down to the ring with Khali, and walked to the back once the match began. Then, finally they let him stay at ringside, however he basically does nothing. Same with other people at ringside like Tony Atlas.

Whoever stays at ringside nowadays (which is few and far between when anyone is allowed to anymore) essentially does nothing in the matches. And that is obviously because Vince feeling that they take away from the action. Why he thinks the action in the damn ring is so fucking critical, as like it is actually a real sport, is mind-boggling. What made me interested in wrestling was the total package ... not just what went on inside the ring.

That package for me included both what went on inside AS WELL AS what went on outside the ring, the quality of the feuds and stories, the colorful personalities (of which managers greatly contributed), and all the other stuff. For me, it was never about just the action in the ring, because wrestling simply is not a real sport. If I wanted to watch people actually wrestle for real, then I would watch UFC or Amateur Wrestling.

It saddens me that over the years, people have adopted Vince's ideology that managers should ONLY be used for people who have trouble speaking. Therefore, people who think this way, view managers as unnecessary. Managers added a whole new element of entertainment to wrestling, that one probably does not appreciate unless they lived through and were a fan of the Hogan Era. The Attitude Era was when Vince began eliminating male managers and replaced them with Divas at ringside.

But ringside managers like Bobby Heenan and Jimmy Hart are a lost art. Not only do they help the wrestlers who don't speak well on their own, but they add an extra element to those that actually did (like Heenan and Rick Rude or Hart with Honky Tonk Man) and make them even better. Again, it was the package deal that I liked. Some guys didn't NEED managers to talk for them like Rude and Honky, but managers still added even more interest to the feuds, through their antics.

Not only did they add to promos, but perhaps even more importantly were their shenanigans at ringside, which made the matches much more entertaining then they are today. The element on whether or not the third man was going to interfere or not, and then the enjoyment the crowd sees of seeing that individual perhaps take a bump at the end of the match, simply made things that much more enjoyable. Match outcomes had a lot more variety with managers, than without them, which kept the matches even more interesting.

When did i say commentary/managers were distracting from the in ring action ? were u refering to my post or what i was replying to?

that was the original post, Personally i loved the managers and the Face commentary and the Heel Commentary that the likes of JR/King, Monsoon/Ventura/Heenan made some of the most memorable moments even more memorable and the managers throughout the years served there role well,

i was agreeing that the current commentary is a little stale in that respect.

But that managers not being there had nothing to do with taking attention away, i fealt it was more because of financial at the time a necessary shifting to make the talent self reliant and get rid of unnecessary onscreen talent to cut costs. Plus maybe a lack of people wanting to take on the role of a manager/valet who would obviously be payed a lot less.

As of late IMO the quality of wrestling in WWE atleast has improved alot, and as such JR for one has something to go nuts on like old times. But still that niggling between commentary that to a lesser degree happens between Josh Mathews and Matt Striker is needed again.

If i misinterpreted oh well. I got one word for ya!!!
DOH!!!!!

 

[Tastycles]

You couldn't be more offbase with your assessment of why things are the way they are in the Broadcast booth today. It has EVERYTHING to do with Vince McMahon. And Ross even states as much (without outright naming names) in his blog.

So Jim Ross states its Vince without saying its Vince. You seem to believe that you are somehow in the mind of figures in the wrestling world. Does Vince McMahon tell them to have zero chemistry? Does he tell Michael Coe to use the word vintage a million times, does he tell Jim Ross to say exactly the same thing everytime somebody interrupts a promo? No. Therefore he isn't entirely to blame.

Things are like that for a reason. Vince doesn't want his commentators standing out or distracting people from the in-ring action. He doesn't want his commentators being characters any longer.

Using a different word each week is hardly going to pump in character, is it? If Cole said "classic" instead of "vintage", he's hardly going to develop. If Jim Ross said "things just got interesting" instead of "business has just picked up". If anything,using the same cliches every week give them more character.

That is obviously a running joke that is done each week ... almost a shout-out to the IWC. Ross and some of the other commentators even joke about Cole's use of the word once in a while.

It amazes me to think people don't think he's doing that on purpose.

He may be taking the piss now, but that is completely because LAwler and Ross picked up n it when they were all doing the PPV commentary.

They have to get approval first from Vince.

What, to use language? What they say is obviously not scripted, otherwise Adamle wouldn't have been such an abortion of a commentator. Clearly, he proves that it is at least in part down to the commentators what they say, even if they aren't allowed to have a character. Have mercy!

Why do you think we don't have Heels in the Broadcast Booth anymore? Do you honestly think it is because Vince simply can't find any Heel characters to do it? If McMahon wanted Matt Striker to be a Heel, than Striker would be a Heel.

Well, yes actually. Striker does do some heelish things. The product has not changed significantly since JBL was on Smackdown, which was only 18 months ago. Lawler and Ross were stale then, and Tazz just goes on about nothing which is kind of cool, but it isn't character based. If there was anyone who could do the job properly, why wouldn't Vince do it? You say it has to do with character, then why is Striker's commentary persona identical to his wrestling one, of a smart arse know it all that loves wrestling? Why isn't he just saying "great offense from Kozlov"? Because he is the only commentator who is good enough not to have a stale and diluted persona, that's why. If Vince wanted to curtail character, than Striker would be offering the same kind of shit insight that Lawler and Tazz did.

You'll have to talk to Vince about that one, since he does not agree with Face/Heel broadcast teams anymore.

Why do you think you know what Vince wants. Do you honestly think that he has completely reimagined the way he wants to do things in the 18 months since JBL retired? Lawler's heel character has been under scrutiny for over 30 years, and was stale by the time he stopped doing it. Striker basically is a heel "I'm a Zach Ryder fan" he said, this week, and neither JR nor Todd Grisham have the balls to be a heel. Look at how shit his heel turn was. That is why we don't have heel commentators.

Why people are so afraid to lay any blame on Vince, when Vince is clearly the one that needs to be blamed in almost every Creative situation with the company given how hands-on he is, is really beyond me. Ross even stated in a Q&A that there is "only one person in charge of Creative within the WWE, and his name is Vince McMahon".

But the quality of the commentating isn't soley a creative thing. If the wrestling is shit, you blame the wrestler and the creative direction, this is exactly the same. Maybe the commentators do have their wings clipped by McMahon, but that doens't mean that it is not their fault that they use exaxctly the same words week in week out. I sincerely doubt Vince would say "Remember Jim, use exactly the same idioms this week that you did last week". Why would he?

What WWE show were you watching? Gorilla Monsoon and Vince McMahon had no "personality" as broadcasters? I'm sorry, but that is one of the most asinine things I have ever heard related to the broadcast booth.

Where is the personality that McMahon had? He was an awful commentator, awful. Monsoon, probably an overstatement, but getting told to shut up by Jesse Ventura is just about all McMahon did, and that still happens to Cole now. Michael Cole as he is now is about 20 times more entertaining than McMahon was. Take Ventura, King, Heenan or DiBiase away from McMahon and you have Mike Adamle.

Having the announcers have differing viewpoints would unquestionably liven up the broadcast two-fold. Bobby Heenan is typically regarded as the Top Color Commentator of all time, with both Jesse Ventura and Jerry Lawler right behind him. All 3 of those guys made the broadcasts far more entertaining to listen to, than any of today's commentators. And it's because not only were they great, but there were allowed to be great because of the Face/Heel team concept.

No, it's because they are the most flamboyant and entertaining colour commentators. Take now, Don West and Mike Tenay are much maligned for being shit, wrongly in my opinion, but they are. There is a clear heel and face dynamic there.Westand Tenay are regularly berated, and a lot of people want to see Tazz replace West. If it were true that the people want heel and face, then this wouldn't be the case. The problem you seem to be having is differentiating between a good commentators being heel and heel commentator being good. If Tod Grisham turned heel tomorrow, it would add nothing whatsoever to the booth.

Are you telling us that Heenan would have been just as entertaining if he were a Babyface? Look at his work on Nitro compared to WWE, where he was turned into "John Madden" for your answer.

He was old and disillusioned. If I compare him towards the end of his heelish attitude in Nitro to his analytical period, it's much of the same.

And the style of commentary was ten times better back then, compared to today. Again though, that is out of their hands. Those guys can't just change their style of commentary at a whim.

I can't imagine that many people are going to fail to acknowledge that the style of commentary has changed since then. Obviously, that change came from somewhere, and it certainly isn't the announcers themselves.

How is Cole and JBL any different from Cole and Lawler on the early Smackdowns? It isn't. The difference comes now when you have people who can't cut as much of a character, not that they aren't allowed to, that they can't. Tazz was never anything but an analyst, and he started in your golden period. JR is exactly the same now as he was then, only he's old so much of his observations have been heard before. The only one who has significantly changed their style of presentation is King. Maybe this is down to Vince, maybe it isn't. The thing is, is once someone is in the hall of fame, they can't really be a heel anymore, there is almost an automatic respect given.

You adopted McMahon's philosophies well in that commentary does not matter. The commentary can either make or break a show. They can make the show entertaining or completely boring.

This is completely false. Commentary needs to be there, but good wrestling speaks for itself. They could have had Stephen Hawking and Droopy commentating on Austin stunnering Vince and it would have still been fantastic. If you need commentary to put the show over, your show isn't as good as it should be.

Having that element of Face/Heel broadcast teams is not only more entertaining for the audience, but also can turn a bad match into a good one.

No it can't. Not for me anyway. I basically tune out to the commentators, always have. If you need someone to make your mind up about it though, maybe it is better that way.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

So Jim Ross states its Vince without saying its Vince. You seem to believe that you are somehow in the mind of figures in the wrestling world.

No. I just have a set of eyes and ears and can read the newsboards while looking at the product, understanding the changes being made, where they are coming from, and determining whether or not what the newsboards are reporting is the truth and are reflected in what is seen with the product.

Does Vince McMahon tell them to have zero chemistry

?

Yep.

Does he tell Michael Coe to use the word vintage a million times

Most likely.

does he tell Jim Ross to say exactly the same thing everytime somebody interrupts a promo?

Again, most likely.

No. Therefore he isn't entirely to blame.

I thought you just got done accusing me that I am "somehow in the minds of people in the wrestling world." Yet, you are too now apparently, and can read minds.

Using a different word each week is hardly going to pump in character, is it? If Cole said "classic" instead of "vintage", he's hardly going to develop. If Jim Ross said "things just got interesting" instead of "business has just picked up". If anything,using the same cliches every week give them more character.

I can agree with that to an extent. However, that is small in comparison to their overall style, and enthusiasm level, which is pretty low. All I am saying is that one has to be pretty naive if they simply think the commentators themselves are doing that on their own.

He may be taking the piss now, but that is completely because LAwler and Ross picked up n it when they were all doing the PPV commentary.

Yep. And Vince had nothing to do with Cole saying "vintage" each week and week out.

Despite the fact that Vince sits on headset for all of Raw and Smackdown while feeding lines to his commentators, Cole did that all on his own, and Vince apparently has serious issues with Cole doing that, yet for some reason is powerless to stop him.

What, to use language? What they say is obviously not scripted, otherwise Adamle wouldn't have been such an abortion of a commentator. Clearly, he proves that it is at least in part down to the commentators what they say, even if they aren't allowed to have a character. Have mercy!

I don't think what they say is necessarily scripted. I simply think Vince feeds them occasional lines throughout the broadcasts. I also believe there are things in the script of the show and instructions given to the commentators on things they are supposed to get over.

Well, yes actually. Striker does do some heelish things.

Are you telling me that it is the exact same Matt Striker in the broadcast booth that is the same level of Heel as Matt Striker the wrestler, and manager?

He is hardly a Heel, any longer. He may throw a bone here or there, but nothing significant. Not like the old days of Face/Heel commentators.

The product has not changed significantly since JBL was on Smackdown, which was only 18 months ago. Lawler and Ross were stale then, and Tazz just goes on about nothing which is kind of cool, but it isn't character based.

I agree that Ross and Lawler were both stale then, which absolutely boggles my mind on why the IWC would like to see them back together given the current style of commentating. Which by the way, is a small difference in between when JBL and Cole were doing commentary together. If anything, the commentary has gotten even more toned down and subdued since that time period. Now, occasional silence is acceptable, and there is a lot less excitement from the commentators since that time period.

It's a miracle that JBL got away with half the stuff he did on the mic, given the way Vince now sees commentary, but I suppose Vince wasn't harping as much on changing the commentary style then as compared to today.

You say it has to do with character, then why is Striker's commentary persona identical to his wrestling one, of a smart arse know it all that loves wrestling?

He can spout off all the technical knowledge he wants to, but he is unquestionably toned down from what he was when he was in the ring, and I don't know how anyone can dispute that with a straight face.

And he does not give the impression that he is a "know it all" that is "sticking it in everyone's face that he is a know it all". Rather, he comes across like more of an analyst of a real sport, who provides depth to the product as opposed to simply entertaining people.

Why isn't he just saying "great offense from Kozlov"? Because he is the only commentator who is good enough not to have a stale and diluted persona, that's why. If Vince wanted to curtail character, than Striker would be offering the same kind of shit insight that Lawler and Tazz did.

Striker is on ECW, which means that he is a lot less under the microscope than Cole, Lawler, Ross, and Grisham.

Does it make sense to you for when why Tazz left, why he wasn't replaced with another color commentator like Matt Striker, who is a lot better analyst compared to Todd Grisham on Smackdown?

Just because Striker offers a lot of depth to the matches and background does not mean he has a character. To prove that, he doesn't give a people a reason to either cheer him or boo him. He's just there and does his job as an analyst.

Why do you think you know what Vince wants.

Again, because .....


1) I have a pair of eyes and can read newsboards

2) Can use those same eyes to look at the product and determine whether or not some news reports are accurate based on what I see happening to the product

3) I understand how absolutely hands-on Vince is with the Creative department and how demanding he is with his commentators based on testimonials

Do you honestly think that he has completely reimagined the way he wants to do things in the 18 months since JBL retired?

Yes.

Lawler's heel character has been under scrutiny for over 30 years, and was stale by the time he stopped doing it. Striker basically is a heel "I'm a Zach Ryder fan" he said, this week, and neither JR nor Todd Grisham have the balls to be a heel.

Oh, give me a break. If Vince wanted Ross or Grisham to be a Heel on the mic, they would be. Vince has the final say. That stuff isn't up to people like Ross or Grisham. Ross has played Heel two times in the past behind the mic, albeit very briefly.

If Vince wanted Matt Striker to be a full blown Heel, than Striker would be a full-blown heel.

Look at how shit his heel turn was. That is why we don't have heel commentators.

We don't have Heel commentators because Vince does not want Heel commentators. Vince could order tomorrow that he wants Lawler, Grisham, and Striker to be full-blown Heels and they would do what he says.

But the quality of the commentating isn't soley a creative thing.

Yes, it is.

If the wrestling is shit, you blame the wrestler and the creative direction, this is exactly the same. Maybe the commentators do have their wings clipped by McMahon, but that doens't mean that it is not their fault that they use exaxctly the same words week in week out. I sincerely doubt Vince would say "Remember Jim, use exactly the same idioms this week that you did last week". Why would he?

A good question. Personally, though, the sayings don't bother me. However, you know Vince and his brand of humor. Maybe he thinks the fans get a kick out of hearing certain cliche sayings week-in and week-out. Ross admits that he has his brand of cliche sayings he uses on his blog (which is obviously a big duh! to most of us).

Where is the personality that McMahon had? He was an awful commentator, awful.

I honestly don't know how you can look at McMahon and say he had no personality as a Play by Play guy. He picked sides, got very, very excited .... he routinely got into it with Jesse Ventura .... anything that went against Hulk Hogan was utter blasphemy.

I can understand not liking the guy, but to cloud your judgment and say that he has the same bland personality as today's Michael Cole is a fallacy. McMahon demonstrated far more character than Cole does today behind the mic.

Furthermore, I know a lot of IWC members give Vince static, but I absolutely loved him behind the mic. I found him to be entertaining to listen to. Gorilla Monsoon will likely always be my favorite play by play guy, mostly because he was almost always paired up with either Bobby Heenan and Jesse Ventura, and those combinations were always great together ... but Ross is a close second, followed by Vince McMahon for Play by Play.

Vince always got the fans very excited watching the broadcast, creating a lot of drama and tension. "One, two, three HE GOT HIM!!! No, only two. So close ... so very, very close. What does he have to do to win the WWF Championship?"

I can hardly imagine that same Vince McMahon speaking in the same style he wants his current commentators following today.

Monsoon, probably an overstatement, but getting told to shut up by Jesse Ventura is just about all McMahon did, and that still happens to Cole now. Michael Cole as he is now is about 20 times more entertaining than McMahon was.

Absolutely, 100% disagree.

Take Ventura, King, Heenan or DiBiase away from McMahon and you have Mike Adamle.

Again, I am going to have to disagree with that. McMahon still had Stan Lane, Macho Man Randy Savage, and various other face commentators to interact with, and he still exhibited the same commentary style ... minus the bickering. He was still over-the-top, and I didn't necessarily have a problem with that.

No, it's because they are the most flamboyant and entertaining colour commentators. Take now, Don West and Mike Tenay are much maligned for being shit, wrongly in my opinion, but they are.

For the record, I am a fan of the current Face/Heel format they are using and support these guys. They ARE entertaining to listen to and I agree that they are wrongfully shat on.

There is a clear heel and face dynamic there.Westand Tenay are regularly berated, and a lot of people want to see Tazz replace West.

That would be the worst thing TNA could do ... putting Tazz in the broadcast booth. I thought he was awful with WWE, but again, one has to wonder how much of that was by directive of Vince and how much of that was Tazz' fault. Of course, before McMahon began altering the commentary style, I thought Tazz sucked, anyway .... so I am going to put most of the blame on him.

If it were true that the people want heel and face, then this wouldn't be the case. The problem you seem to be having is differentiating between a good commentators being heel and heel commentator being good. If Tod Grisham turned heel tomorrow, it would add nothing whatsoever to the booth.

Again, I disagree. Solely the fact that you have commentators with differing viewpoints can make the show more entertaining ... regardless of how good a commentator they really are. It's kind of like the age old adage of "the medium is the message." Simply the concept alone of a face/heel broadcast team and two differing viewpoints is a tremendous step in the right direction .... unless someone is so completely obnoxious and beyond a failure as a commentator. I could pick out Rio Rogers and Bruce Prichard's brief stint as a Heel behind the mic with Vince. That was such an obnoxious gimmick, that he was simply unbearable to listen to.

He was old and disillusioned. If I compare him towards the end of his heelish attitude in Nitro to his analytical period, it's much of the same.

Actually, Bobby Heenan was fine when he first started with WCW and played Heel. When Bischoff did the same thing that McMahon is doing today by telling Heenan to act like an "analyst", that is when things went all downhill from there.

How is Cole and JBL any different from Cole and Lawler on the early Smackdowns? It isn't.

I think few are going to agree with you that they notice "no difference between Michael Cole's performance on Smackdown and the Michael Cole who is on Raw today".

Cole's style has completely changed. I am amazed that you simply don't see any of this. However, reading your comments below, I can perhaps understand why. We'll get there momentarily.

The difference comes now when you have people who can't cut as much of a character, not that they aren't allowed to, that they can't.

Again, who thinks they are in the mind of WWE Creative? I guess I'm not the only one.

No, absolutely disagree. It isn't because they can't ... it's because they simply are being restricted by Vince the Dictator and it isn't what he wants. Again, any of those guys, such as Lawler or Striker, could be told by Vince to turn Heel tomorrow and they would follow his orders.

Tazz was never anything but an analyst, and he started in your golden period.

Tazz actually was a Heel when he first started in the broadcast booth. He was actually not bad. But I don't know what happened, but shortly afterwards the quality of his commentating went downhill big time. Then, he became Tazz the Analyst and was even worse.

JR is exactly the same now as he was then, only he's old so much of his observations have been heard before.

Again, it's amazing how you and I both see things so differently. Ross is a lot more subdued today compared to what he used to be. He even admits in his blog that he gets "yelled at" whenever he gets "too excited". I guess Ross just likes to make shit up and post it for the fun of it.

The only one who has significantly changed their style of presentation is King. Maybe this is down to Vince, maybe it isn't.

It is. All one needs to do is understand how much of an iron fist that Vince rules the company with to know it all comes from him. Just listen to commentators of the past like Mick Foley who talk about their experiences in dealing with him on headset.

The thing is, is once someone is in the hall of fame, they can't really be a heel anymore, there is almost an automatic respect given.

I would argue that, actually. Tony Atlas was a Hall of Famer and played a Heel advisor to Mark Henry. I think Lawler would be just fine as a Heel, if he turned Heel on the next Raw. Hell, he would probably look forward to the refreshing opportunity to do so. He hasn't played a Heel since probably 2000 or so.

But I personally think it is simply time to get rid of the King and find a new face.

This is completely false. Commentary needs to be there, but good wrestling speaks for itself. They could have had Stephen Hawking and Droopy commentating on Austin stunnering Vince and it would have still been fantastic. If you need commentary to put the show over, your show isn't as good as it should be.

No, sir. Stephen Hawking and Droopy trying to sell the stunner on Vince wouldn't have got anywhere near over as compared to Jim Ross shouting "Stunner! Stunner! Stunner!" followed by Lawler's high-pitched squeel about Austin giving a stunner to the owner of the company.

And you know what, WWE isn't as good as it should be, hence why a Face/Heel broadcast team should be in place today given how bland the current mood is. They could help give a much needed boost with generating product interest.

Again, you seem more so of the ROH-mindset where the business should be simply all about the actual wrestling, the wrestling, and the wrestling. For me, and I dare say (going out on a limb) the casual fans ... it never was only about the wrestling. It was about the entire package deal that came with the wrestling. The entertainment on the mic, the promos, the quality of storylines, the gimmicks and flamboyant characters, etc.

If I truly only was interested in seeing athletic grappling bouts, then I would follow Amateur Wrestling or UFC.

The product has been too toned down in some of the most vital areas, and unfortunately the commentary is one of them. In the booth, you need people that generate excitement, not people who sound like you are attending a funeral.

Wrestling is not a sport. And nor should it be treated like one.

No it can't. Not for me anyway. I basically tune out to the commentators, always have.

Well, that is you. And that is what I was referencing above. However, I don't think you are necessarily in the majority on this one, given how many people I have seen complaining about the horrendous quality of commentary.

Again, it only goes to show that you watch wrestling ONLY for the actual scripted wrestling, as if it is a sport. That's fine if that is how you derive your entertainment solely from the matches. However, that doesn't mean that everyone else has your mindset and want to view the product that way. For some people, you need more than simply scripted bouts between two bland personalities, with two bland commentators ... to entertain you. Count me in on that crowd.

If you need someone to make your mind up about it though, maybe it is better that way.

It has nothing to do with someone "making my mind up for me about what is good or bad". Rather, it simply has to do with them keeping me entertained. What is going on today behind the mic and in the ring is not quite doing the job, compared to what I have seen from WWE in year's past. I simply feel that traditional Face/Heel broadcast teams would help to cover for that stale factor by helping to give a little more "E" in "WWE" to make up for it.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The problem WWE has is simple... in the past fans could get into arenas, meet wrestlers, take photos and one day be part of the show...

Take a look at the requirements for WWE these days on their corporate page... College Degree... IN TV!!!! Play by Play experience...

They want specialised training not related to wrestling...

Coachman was the prime example, he always wanted ESPN... he took FULL advantage of WWE to get where he wanted... same with writing...

What WWE has lost sight of is the best people to write, and talk about wrestling... are wrestling fans... not TV majors....

On Sky in the UK they have Fan Zone, a thing where 2 fans of the opposing teams commentate... WWE, if they REALLY want the next generation of commentators should release some matches without commentary, let fans commentate over them... then I guarantee they will find the next JR, Gordon Solie and Gorilla Monsoon...

 

[SK]

Yes the commentary has become very stale, I feel like Cole & Lawler just don't mesh and with Lawler not being heel anymore, that's not surprising. Now I don't bitch and moan about Cole too much, because I think he's not that bad, and if rumours are correct Vince tells them what to say, so what can they really do?

Heel/Face commentating teams are sorely needed back in the WWE, it gives the wrestlers/storylines different perspectives, and it makes the matches more enjoyable, but I don't see heel/face teams returning any time soon unfortunately.

 

[GameOver]

The problem WWE has is simple... in the past fans could get into arenas, meet wrestlers, take photos and one day be part of the show...

Take a look at the requirements for WWE these days on their corporate page... College Degree... IN TV!!!! Play by Play experience...

They want specialised training not related to wrestling...

Coachman was the prime example, he always wanted ESPN... he took FULL advantage of WWE to get where he wanted... same with writing...

What WWE has lost sight of is the best people to write, and talk about wrestling... are wrestling fans... not TV majors....

On Sky in the UK they have Fan Zone, a thing where 2 fans of the opposing teams commentate... WWE, if they REALLY want the next generation of commentators should release some matches without commentary, let fans commentate over them... then I guarantee they will find the next JR, Gordon Solie and Gorilla Monsoon...

This is true. when they have hollywood people writing scripts, guest GM's that have nothing to with wrestling other than knowing it exists.

Til that changes there's no hope of going back to the billiance that was the late 80's-late 90's

as for Don West, i'll always disagree that he is any good. I'd rather listen to Tony Schiovane or anyone on the curent WWE product than him. Vinnie Mac started as commentator and he did a great job for someone who had no idea what he was doing "in his own words"

And for over a decade WWF/E was awesome, but he has obviously lost the plot along time ago. Commentary being stale is just a small part of a total problem in WWE and TNA in general.

 

[WorldHeavyweightChampion]

The BEST commentary team ever was Jim Ross and 'The Dean' Gordon Sollie (in the NWA).

2nd best was between Eric Bischoff and Bobby Heenan (86 Mongo, he sucked) or Tony Schavone, Mike Tenay (WCW Tenay; not him in TNA), and Larry Zybysko/Bobby Heenan (they split the 3rd man between the two halves of Nitro).

 

[YoYoYumba]

Blasphemy!

You are going to have the ROH-bots coming after your head with a statement like that

Lord Sidicious do you actually believe WWE is a legit sport? Are you out of your mind or something??? WWE is not a legit sport. ITS F**in scripted for god sake. Apologies for my late response but I don't have time to be here that often. WWE is all about entertainment, it's about characters, its about storylines, it's not an actual legit sport. Can someone please back me up here??? How can you call something which is scripted an actual legit sport??? A legit sport does not involve a bad guy v a good guy OK???? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT???? Wrestling in general is a legit sport but WWE, even though it is wrestling, can not be taken seriously as a legit sport because its all SCRIPTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For god sake, I can't believe people in here don't even know that.
Neway the commentary is seriously stuffed up like I said before, I hope it changes because I want the commentators to actually give their opinions and not Vince Mchahons robotic instructions.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

Listen folks, anyone that says the WWE commentary's NOT stale needs to get their fan card checked at the door. Listen to commentary 3 years ago, and listen to it today. Quite simply, whoever is feeding lines to these guys is lame. And it's probably Vince McMahon.

Having Michael Cole and Jerry Lawler say bad lines makes for a bad overall product. The only way to combat the WWE's bad commentary is to put JR and King back together. It makes perfect sense to do so, because people are used to JR and King and no matter how much we hear Cole say 'episodic', most of the fan base isn't going to like it. I sure as hell don't. Instead of being creative with what the commentary is, they feed them cliche lines that Vince believes other people will start using to describe said wrestler. Orton's 'viper' lines are Vince's way of having us not call him 'Legend Killer' anymore. I don't give a shit. Legend Killer's way greater than Viper. You can tell that the lines are so canned and that most of the time, Cole and Lawler don't want to say what's being fed to them. It's as if they're being held at gunpoint to say those lines. Maybe Vince should look into that and get the input of the commentators or other writers on what can be said instead of just saying things that are clever only to Vince.

And I think we're well aware wrestling's scripted.

 

[ipswichicon80]

Whilst I agree that viewers attenion should be focused in the ring,when done well the commentry ENHANCHES it,not detracts from it! The limitations the commentaters are under(ordred not to say ref's names,not to ever refer to the "superstars" as wrestlers or mention "wrestleing") must be extremly hard on them.It's Ironic that Even though Vince sucked as a commentater(1,2,3 he got him,wait no he didn't,on every near fall)the commentary was at it's best then because he wasn't in the gorilla postion telling them what to say.And how stupid was it to Vince to feed a line to JR,mocking Vicki G on being fat?And on that subject how disgusting was it that Vicki was humiliated for daring to want to spend more time with her fatherless children?

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Lord Sidicious do you actually believe WWE is a legit sport? Are you out of your mind or something??? WWE is not a legit sport. ITS F**in scripted for god sake. Apologies for my late response but I don't have time to be here that often. WWE is all about entertainment, it's about characters, its about storylines, it's not an actual legit sport. Can someone please back me up here??? How can you call something which is scripted an actual legit sport??? A legit sport does not involve a bad guy v a good guy OK???? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT???? Wrestling in general is a legit sport but WWE, even though it is wrestling, can not be taken seriously as a legit sport because its all SCRIPTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For god sake, I can't believe people in here don't even know that.
Neway the commentary is seriously stuffed up like I said before, I hope it changes because I want the commentators to actually give their opinions and not Vince Mchahons robotic instructions.

Will you calm the Fuck down?

If you have actually read any of my posts at any length, you would realize that I feel exactly the same way you do.

That post was full of sarcasm. How can you think I was serious, if I were taking the side of the "ROH Bots", whom many refer to the Ring of Honor fans, who seem to think that wrestling is somehow a legitimate sport? If I agreed with their perspective, chances are I'm not going to call them "ROH bots".

I think Vince had it right back in the late 90's and early part of this decade when he marketed it as an Action/Drama Entertainment show/soap opera. Nowadays, he has his spokespeople try to refer to it as "entertainment" to the public, but when you watch the product you get a different feel ... as if he is trying to take the entertainment away from wrestling, and portray it in fact, as a sport. I simply vehemently disagree with that approach. Aside from Hornswoggle for the kiddies to keep them occupied, there are definitely some influences from either Japan, Ring of Honor, or both coming into play with what he is currently doing with the overall product. And that is exactly why the ROH bots are absolutely thrilled with what Vince has done to the product over the past year.

 

[YoYoYumba]

Ok my bad LD...