Round 5: Falkon -vs- Franchize1990

I will be affirming the topic. Franchize1990 can go first.

Good luck, mate.

 

Good luck to you too as well Falkon.

On to the debate, when watching professional wrestling, that person is watching a weekly drama filled with guys and girls getting into conflicts and solving their problems in the ring. Each week, these wrestlers tell a story and that story is then retold to everyone else through commentators. The question is "Is commentary an important aspect of watching wrestling?" I'm here to tell you that it's not all that important as people make it out to be.

It is a wrestler's job to tell the story.​

This is my main point to my argument and as stated in the title, it is the duty of the wrestler to tell the audience of what's going on through what they say in their promos and what they do in the ring to illustrate the story. Commentary is not necesseraily needed in wrestling because it is only repeating or translating what the wrestlers do in the ring. For example, I'll use the John Cena/Batista match at this year's Extreme Rules. During the beginning of the match, the commentary team were, basically, just restating everything that Cena and Batista have said to each other for the past month or so while throwing in the occasional interesting stat that some people may not know. As the match moves on, they start to go on about how resiliant Cena and Batista are and how is one going to keep the other down, which is the same story the two were telling the WWE Universe through their actions.

 

All sports have commentating... period. You can switch onto any type of sport and I can guarantee you that there will be some random voices appearing out of nowhere calling the action, one usually describing the action and the rest offering their professional opinions due to experience, an extremely high knowledge and/or their significance to the sport. For ever since I can remember, there have been people calling the action... and I don't see it ever stopping because of how important it is.

As it pertains to professional wrestling (whilst not considered a "sport" as such), it has the same preferences as what I have stated... therefore commentary is an important aspect. Why? Well...

They Retain Your Attention:​

Professional wrestling shows go for quite a long time when you think about. It's a lot longer than most of the sports the majority of the population watch. Not to mention that the viewing time for a lot of people is considerably late in the night when everyone is beginning or already begun to relax, allowing our bodies to slow down from what we achieved during the day (which most involve either work or school). There is a lot of switching between multiple storylines, scenes and matches... all requiring our brains to process the information quickly. Sometimes, the amount of reasoning to justify what happens can be quite bothersome... luckily, this is where commentary comes in.

The commentators are the people that keep us from dozing off or failing to understand what is going on. It can be in the form of commentator interaction where they make jokes between each other, often aimed at trying to get the audience to react. If you laugh, they're doing their job of keeping you alert. It can be in the form of the commentators just talking about the current match or introducing things into the mix (which I will get to later on). Let's face it, not all things on a professional wrestling episode is going to be five star classic. Sometimes, it fails horribly. There aren't many variables in these situations that can be controlled... commentary is one of those. Add the voices of commentators to a pretty dull match (I'm looking at you WWE Diva's) and they can make it bearable to get through.

Naturally, when someone is communicating to you and you are remotely interested or paying attention, you will continue to do so. Having commentators talk and entertain you through the broadcast will maintain your interest and keep you watching.

Professional Discussions:​

Not all of the fans of wrestling are members of the IWC and/or do their research about the current product. Believe it or not, a lot of people watch the shows and that's about as far as it goes. Other than that... they have no idea as to what is happening. Commentators are the easiest way of keeping people in touch with their history, relevant information, profiles on different wrestlers, etc. For example, someone who is new to the product can watch a segment between John Cena and Nexus. Now, the majority of the fanbase know the history between them... but to a new person, they would only pick up that they don't like each other. Insert the commentators into the mix and they can provide these details, clarifying uncertainties or things wrestlers seem to miss out on. They might be insignificant to us avid fans and followers of the industry, but it sure helps a lot of the young, new and/or unfamiliar fans with what's going on.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -​

This is where it gets interesting:

I'm not going to argue against what the wrestlers bring into the match. They are the focal point of telling the story, sure, that's true... but who said that adding in things like commentary doesn't make it that much more? The guys on the broadcast table are able to change what their voice sounds like (through pitch, tone, mood) and influence what the wrestlers are actually telling. I'll take Michael Cole as my example here... for weeks on end, he has been hyping up the Miz as the next biggest star of the business and has done everything but publicly bent over backwards for the man. Sure, Miz comes out and claims that he is the next star, with the MITB and US titles proving this... but if you have someone as unbiased as Michael Cole rooting for the Miz, then he is persuading you to think that Miz is something truly special.

What about the numerous times during the end of a main event where Jim Ross is screaming at the top of his lungs? A lot of people remember the "STONE COLD! STONE COLD!" quotes from back in the day... didn't that add much more excitement to the viewers at home for Steve Austin's character?

My point exactly... they are keeping your attention and adding something new to the mix. They summarise everything that these men put themselves through just to get that point in time, allowing those who might have forgotten all the details to refresh themselves and determine how brutal their feud really is. Granted, they do re-tell what the wrestlers are performing... but the commentators add a little something special for the moment by hyping and anticipating what could happen. Cole has been known to absolutely freak out during near falls at the end of the match, making people turn heads at home and getting the blood pumping... ultimately getting your interest. Sometimes, their speaking alone and taking the situation over the top will make you sit on the edge of your seat. Announcing prolongs what's going to happen, making the pay-off from the wrestlers that much sweeter for the viewers at home.

 

They try to keep us from dozing off during the show. Now this may not be the commentator's fault but, people still fall asleep during the show. This is usually due to that said person not being invested enough in the character to care what is going to happen to him or her in that segment. Part of the job of getting the character over falls on the commentator, as you put it. If the brocast team can't do their job right, then I don't really see them as an important figure for pro wrestling.

Now I can't speak for everybody and I don't do this but, most people see these dull matches as an opportunity to use the restroom and get some snacks before the wrestlers they care about come on.

I would say that an interesting storyline, a wrestler the fans enjoy and a decent match are the more important aspects that would keep people watching. Commentary would fall farther down the list in terms of what people actually tune in to watch.

Commentators aren't really nesesscery to fill in the newer viewers in on the situation when they are very interchangable. The commentators can, and at times have, been replaced by small video packages filling the people in on what has been going on in the story. Not only do the newer viewers get to catch up on what is taking place between the wrestlers in the feud, they get to actually witness the event to see how brutal or how shocking, in the Nexus' case, really was.

If Cole was praising the Miz before NXT had started, you might've had a point but Cole hasn't really been unbiased since then. Recently, Cole has been very biased against the IWC favorites and is starting to become more in favor of the heels instead of the faces. He only started praising The Miz's actions when they were degrading to Daniel Bryan.

For every moment like Jim Ross', there is a moment where the commentators ruin what should've been an epic moment. On the Feburary 1 episode, when Bret Hart finally put his hands on Mr. McMahon, Michael Cole brought down the segment by talking about the event with a monotone voice is stead of hyping up the segment with an excited voice. It was still a great moment, but the commentary definitaley down graded it from epic to just pretty good. Now if there wasn't any commentary in that situation, the audience would probably react as if Cena had just made an entrance.

I think that is true only when you have a top of the line commentator, like Jim Ross was to me back when I just started to watch wrestling. I would listen to everything he'd say and take it to heart. With commentators becoming so interchangable now-a-days, it's hard to get behind commentators when it seems like a good number of them sound similar to each other.

 

How do you expect people to tune into an episode of wrestling if the commentator's can't keep them awake whilst trying to invest their time in a wrestling match? You take away the commentators and it will become less interesting, forcing more people to become quite bored.

Again, you are still blowing your argument out of the water here. Essentially, you are saying that the wrestlers can't do it themselves to get people interested. The whole point of performing in professional wrestling is get the audience to invest in what you are doing, even if you are the Diva's. If the people can't get tied to the match, they will be looking for commentators to spice it up. I'm pretty sure Jerry Lawler has got some pretty good one-liner's set up for the girls when they come out and can get some entertainment involved.

People tune into professional wrestling to watch the show, due to the characters and their storylines. The commentators are something that aids the program along and helps keep viewers interested, as well as keeping to traditional values. By trying to discredit commentators, you'd be removing the likes of Ring Announcer's and Backstage Interviewers as well.

Whilst professional wrestling is an entertainment business, they still do a sports aspect to the show in the form of wrestling and adding commentator's compliment it nicely. They call the action, do their own analysis, feature some facts and get the audience at home to invest into the match by different emotions on the mic. JR, anyone?

Have you noticed that a lot of these video packages actually include lines done by commentators that summerise parts of the feud nicely? Their facts or reactions to the situations show the intensity of what has been going on. Michael Cole usually describes the Nexus on how disgusting they can be by using a degrading voice when he introduces them.

What's your point?

Michael Cole is playing a portion of the audience like a fiddle and getting them to react. Every time you hear Cole speak of how Miz is AWESOME and Bryan is nothing, people don't take too kindly to it. The reasoning he gives as to why both are as he views them are asinine to say the least, sure... but that's getting people to care about Bryan and to hate the Miz. That's one excellent reason to why Commentary is a necessary role.

All things considered, it was a pretty delicate moment. The heat between Bret Hart and Vince McMahon is well documented, and commentating in any biased voice here wouldn't have benefited Cole. It was a serious moment and Cole needed to stay in this monotone voice to keep it that way. This is a real-life feud that everyone has known about for multiple years and was made a huge deal out of, so this was stepping outside the walls of kayfabe here. Commentators needed to go there too, so we could follow them.

The commentators have been inter-changeable due to the amount of shows the WWE have in these times compared to the yesteryear's, but that's besides the point... all the commentators that have been featured on television have done the job before on a different show and been doing it for a long while. Grisham & Striker worked well on the Dub, and got moved to SD where they are doing a good job. Lawler and Cole have been going at it for years now... and Matthews has provided commentary on several shows/occasions. Hell, he is the backstage interviewer and gets notoriety there. You can't honestly sit there and say they are "hard to get behind" when we all know who they are.

All have debuted in the company with a character before going to the tables, thus allowing people to respect their jobs/opinions and understand where they are coming from. This is a good connection my friend, and good connections in the form of relationships lead to people being able to empathise with each other. If you empathise with the commentators, they are keeping you interested.

 

Since we are nearing the end of the debate, I'd like to end with a closing statement:


Commentary is what enables us as viewers of professional wrestling to feel the emotion and have a better understanding of what is taking place inside of the squared circle. Through the use of informative statistics, tone/pitch of voice... or just simple wording of a sentence can achieve this. Yes, professional wrestlers are required to tell the story, but it is the men behind the broadcast table that take everything to whole new level... or even pass off a really bad segment/match as watchable.

You can't view a program for 2 hours multiple times a week where there is minimal talking involved and all visuals... you need to stimulate other parts of the brain to keep you watching and interested. Commentators are the easiest solution to a show that involves a "sport."

 

Oh, Franchize1990, it breaks my heart that you didn't bring puro into this debate to support your position . Your opening argument was short, sweet, and coherent, though, so I give you the point for clarity. I'll also give you the point for informativeness as well since you did a nice job of effectively using every piece of information you presented. FalKon gets the win here, though, as his rebuttals and closing arguments showed he wanted the win (and he gets it with points for punctuality and persuasion).

Final Score
FalKon - 3
Franchize1990 - 2

 

Clarity of debate: Falkon
Perfect understanding of the question and gave some good insight. Franchize seem to throwing random bits of opinion out and nothing was consistent.

Punctuality: Falkon
Falkon keeps timed and even concludes too.

Informative: Falkon
Back to my point earlier, Franchize seem to throwing info left and right but nothing was solid, nor did he use information effectively. Falkon backed himself up and even responded well to Franchize with a good amount of information.

Persuasion: Falkon
There seem to be two discussions going, a debate, which Falkon was providing, and a matter of opinion, which was what Franchize was demonstrating. While naturally a debate narrows down to what your stance is through your opinion, you need to address what your opponent has to say while keeping backup to your views and rebuttals, Falkon effectively provided this and convinced me thoroughly in regards to commentatary. Franchize while having the hard end of saying otherwise was just throwing opinions and nothing was concrete or structured from his side.

Final Score
Falkon: 5
Franchize1990: 0

 

Clarity: Opening and closing statements from Falkon, and clear posts get him the point on this one.

Point - Falkon

Punctuality: The other judges gave Falkon this point and being a latecomer into this I cant really argue, looking at the time and date on Franchises posts suggest that he missed the 24 hour deadline which is the only thing that will lose you this point from me. Although if I am wrong then please correct me and my score accordingly.

Point - Falkon

Informative: tdigle leans one way, pheonix the other, I am undecided and am calling it a draw as a result

Point - Draw

Persuasion: Falkon won the day with this one though, not a lot I can say on the subject except he was very clear, concise and used his points well, certainly well enough to grab the win

Point - Falkon

My Scores;

Falkon - 4.5
Franchize1990: 0.5