Round 5: Mr. Steve -vs- Papa Grande

[D-Man]

True or False, Matt Striker is one of the best colour commentators of recent times.

This is a fourth round match in the Debater's League. Mr. Steve is the home debater and gets to choose which side of the debate they will be on and who debates first, but they have 24 hours to make their choice.

This thread is for DEBATERS ONLY and will end on Friday at 2pm EST.

Anyone that posts in this thread besides the debaters, league admins, and judges will be infracted!

Good luck.​

 

[Mr. Steve]

I will say that he is the best color commentator at recent times, and I shall post first.

It's quite simple, really: There's no one else doing it correctly, and if they do, they don't stand out more than Striker. What, Cole suddenly comes to mind because he rides the Miz wave and bashes Daniel Bryan Danielson every time he pops up? Taz? You serious?

Let's get this straight though. To be a colour commentator, you need to be able to input wrestling expertise, which Striker does so wonderfully in Friday nights. Lets not forget that he was a wrestler, so his input into the match will be well-founded. Isn't that right, Don West?

Let's bring it, Papa Bear.

 

[Megatron]

Before I begin, I'm gonna wish you luck, Steve. Hopefully we can have ourselves a good debate.
--------------------------
Considering the question, I'm gonna define 'recent' times as the past 5-10 years. I don't know if Steve is going the same way, but that is my perspective of the question: the past 10 years.

In the past ten years, there's been only a handful of Color Commentators in both the WWE and TNA combined. Jerry Lawler, Tazz, Paul Heyman, Mick Foley, JBL, Coachman, Striker and Don West, among others. In order to be a successful color commentator, you have to be, in my opinion, two things:

-Entertaining
-Informative

Only a few guys have been able to pull off the color commentator role perfectly over the past few years. Two, in fact:

Lawler (pre-face turn)
JBL

I know a lot of people's darling commentator now, in the IWC, is Striker, because of his wide variety of moves, while Lawler has pretty much been scoffed at for years now. However, from his run with JR between 02-early 05, Lawler was informative and entertaining, being the perfect heel sympathizer to JR's face loving antics. Lawler isn't the guy I'm going to primarily focus on, as I believe JBL is the best commentator of the past decade.

Despite JBL only being a commentator for a year and a half, he provided the perfect mix of both entertainment and information towards the viewer. He could piss you off by laughing at a dirty tactic by a heel, or inform you why a wrestler would be doing what he is doing inside of the ring. When I watched Smackdown I always got a kick out of JBL belittling Cole every chance he got, and I think it was a fair argument that they were the best commentating team at the time.

As for why Striker isn't the best, it's simple: he doesn't add entertainment to a match. Commentary isn't critical at all to a match's quality, but boring commentary can draw you away from a match. Striker's stuff, while very informative, doesn't get you to love him or hate him. Whenever JBL was commentating, he was both informative and easy to hate with his banter with Cole and his sympathizing or excusing heels. King, the same way when he was heel. Striker seems to focused on explaining moves that he doesn't focus on the wrestlers inside of thering. JBL always seemed to cheer whenever a heel cheated his way to victory, which pissed me off because obviously that wasn't the way a match should've been won, yet he seemed ecstatic that he won. Striker will explain what the moves are and why they're doing it, but he's never showing his true colors on who he's rooting for, which all of the great commentators used to do.

Striker, he's good. But, in the past decade, Heel-King and JBL were far, far more entertaining and informative enough, that they're better then Striker.

 

[Mr. Steve]

As for why Striker isn't the best, it's simple: he doesn't add entertainment to a match.

Of course he does. It's why I think it's the best of recent times. I'm thinking 5 years, not 10. 10 isn't recent, it's a decade. Only competition he would have is JBL.

Striker's stuff, while very informative, doesn't get you to love him or hate him. Whenever JBL was commentating, he was both informative and easy to hate with his banter with Cole and his sympathizing or excusing heels. King, the same way when he was heel. Striker seems to focused on explaining moves that he doesn't focus on the wrestlers inside of the ring.

I just disagree here. He has focused on the wrestlers as well. Wait, wait...a color commentator isn't necessarily something you intertwine with a heel commentator.

Striker will explain what the moves are and why they're doing it, but he's never showing his true colors on who he's rooting for, which all of the great commentators used to do.

Well, it could also be the fact that he's putting the match and the wrestlers in it over. He's been in the ring, remember? He's also shown some favoritism as well. it's just not as pronounced as JBL did it. JBL, while being beast in the booth, doesn't have that subtlety that Striker has. He will put both wrestlers over, put the moves over specially, which is something you're not seeing anywhere nowadays.

Striker, he's good. But, in the past decade, Heel-King and JBL were far, far more entertaining and informative enough, that they're better then Striker.

I don't know about you, but I like my informative. Heel-King lost steam in early 2000's to me. and JBL was just a year too short to being called the best. He needed the big moments.

Here's an example: Summerslam 2010. Striker and Cole showed some great commentary there, particularly with the Team WWE vs. Nexus. Striker pretty much countered everything that Cole said, especially when Bryan returned. Cole would put Bryan down, and Striker would retort.

What Striker really needs is Cole. He needs to team with Cole, and you can see him really go to work. He's a gem on Smackdown, yes, but he can be a bigger gem on the A show. but for now, Striker is the best color commentator in recent times. He shows his favoritism at times, but it's not something that makes you go "He's a heel commentator". He tends to describe how the moves tend have its toll on the body, which puts over the wrestler's resilience. He puts over the gimmicks which shows the viewers at home how the wrestlers act in and out of the ring. He can do it all right now. He does it without taking shots at anyone or anything. He can put you down; He's very well rounded as a commentator right now.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Papa Grande had the better opening post and more information, so he gets points for clarity and informativeness. Mr. Steve took the time to rebut his opponent's argument, so I'm giving him the points for punctuality and persuasion.

Final Score
Mr. Steve - 3
Papa Grande - 2

 

[Miko]

Clarity: Not going to fault either of you on this, so the points being split

Point - Draw

Punctuality: Papa Grande never returned to the argument, losing him this point

Point - Mr. Steve

Informative: Gotta agree with tdigs, Papa Grande did provide the more information

Point - Papa Grande

Persuasion: But Steve's argument was the more persuasive, so he gets the point

Point - Mr. Steve

My scores;

Papa Grande - 1.5
Mr. Steve - 3.5

Sorry if the comments are a little vague, it's just there is very little I feel I can add

 

[Phoenix]

Clarity of debate: Papa Grande
Better presented and a great opening adds to this.

Punctuality: Mr. Steve
No response from Papa gives Steve the point here.

Informative: Papa Grande
Much more information was provided from Papa despite this being a short debate.

Persuasion: Draw
That being said, I wasn't really draw into either. Had this been a longer debate, this could have been a classic of JBL vs. Striker but the lack of a thorough debate has me putting this as a draw

Final Score
Mr. Steve: 2
Papa Grande: 3

 

[D-Man]

Papa Grande had the better opening post and more information, so he gets points for clarity and informativeness. Mr. Steve took the time to rebut his opponent's argument, so I'm giving him the points for punctuality and persuasion.

Final Score
Mr. Steve - 3
Papa Grande - 2

This basically says it all for me. I agree with everything tdigs said, 100%. It';s a shame that Papa Grande wasn't able to keep his momentum from his opening post.

Final Score
Mr. Steve - 3
Papa Grande - 2

 

[D-Man]

After a complete judge's tally, Mr. Steve is the victor with 11.5 points to Papa Grande's 8.5.

Congratulations and great debating from the both of you!