TNA's arena announcing

[It's Damn Real!]

Another small thing I'm not too big a fan of is the fact that TNA uses an in-arena announcer to announce very simple things to the crowd as if the crowd is incapable of understanding it without being notified.

Like what, you ask? Simple. Take the Knockouts battle royal last night. Why is it necessary to announce ot the crowd every time someone is eliminated? Was the crowd not watching? Did they not actually see Wrestler X hit the ground?

If you need an in-arena announcer, IMO it should be done by by someone like Jeremy Borash or So Cal Val – anyone who is capable of climbing into the ring and announcing the pre-match rules to the crowd on a microphone. I hate the idea that some guy can broadcast his voice over the entire audience while a match is going on. It's incredibly distracting, and IMO is quite amateur.

Thoughts? I know I'm being petty, but I'm hoping at least one other person shares my distaste here.

 

[LokiCobain1]

Quite petty.

However, using Raw as an example when Sheamus won that Battle Royal, Randy Orton was just walking around outside the ring for the majority of the match. The announcers over the TV were telling us that he wasn't actually eliminated, but thrown through the middle rope, which for someone who is watching others "battle", may have only seen Orton on the outside, translating into him being eliminated.


Yes, the majority of the time it is obvious to see someone get eliminated, but for those occurrences where they don't go over the top or there's some confusion somewhere along the lines, it helps to have the announcing done. I actually don't think it's more amateur, but more professional, as it seems to be giving "official" verdicts throughout the match rather than just having a cluster of action with one person left who may or may not have won "fairly". Consider every battle royal in general. They usually play out with someone thinking they won but everyone forgets about that one guy who was outside the whole time (Edge usually). The last guy in the ring starts celebrating to only be thrown over by the person everyone forgot was still in the match. That seems more amateur in my opinion than having an official announcement of who is in and out of the match.

 

[The Doctor]

Actually, I liked that. Battle Royals are hard to follow, and that really kept things clean and moving, and easy to "get". Plus, I'm a new fan and didn't know all the Knockouts names, so hearing them when they were eliminated helped me get more into the match by knowing who is who.

So, I disagree with you.

 

[johnbragg]

Philosophically, I kind of like the "voice of God" ring announcing style over the in-ring announcer. Besides boxing, baseball still uses an announcer on the field to start off, largely because they then hand the mike to the singer for the National Anthem. NFL, NBA though just use the stadium PA, and they're a little more current, "New School" so that's who I'd emulate.

So I'm inclined to support an announcer over the PA announcing mid-match events. But I missed most of Impact, so I didn't see how it came off on TV. MAybe it's something they need to tweak the audio of so it comes off as an official sports-type arena announcement and not a guy with a bullhorn telling the crowd what's going on.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Another small thing I'm not too big a fan of is the fact that TNA uses an in-arena announcer to announce very simple things to the crowd as if the crowd is incapable of understanding it without being notified.

Like what, you ask? Simple. Take the Knockouts battle royal last night. Why is it necessary to announce ot the crowd every time someone is eliminated? Was the crowd not watching? Did they not actually see Wrestler X hit the ground?

If you need an in-arena announcer, IMO it should be done by by someone like Jeremy Borash or So Cal Val – anyone who is capable of climbing into the ring and announcing the pre-match rules to the crowd on a microphone. I hate the idea that some guy can broadcast his voice over the entire audience while a match is going on. It's incredibly distracting, and IMO is quite amateur.

Thoughts? I know I'm being petty, but I'm hoping at least one other person shares my distaste here.

I'm sorry It's Damn Real, but you are being extremely petty. I mean first you had complaints about the six sided ring and Beer Money's name, along with having gripes about how Impact is being titled each and every week. Dude its really not a big deal. Next week you'll probably start a thread about how you dislike the camera angles or the Stacker 2 commercials.

I mean the majority of fans could care less about an announcer saying who is eliminated in one knockout battle royal match. I didn't even notice but I'm glad they did because a lot of times especially during the commercial breaks it's hard to tell who was eliminated. The diva's battle royal at Wrestlemania 25 pissed me off because no one bothered telling us who was there and who was eliminated.

I'm not picking on you man for criticizing TNA, but I just don't see any reason to criticize things that aren't that important.

 

[PEP3]

With all of the legitimate, pro wrestling and storyline-related issues to complain about, you're going to focus on an announcer keeping people posted on who is eliminated from the battle royal? From as far back as I can remember, this is something that was utilized on house shows fore the very reasons mentioned above. Battle royals can be confusing to watch, even when it's a four-sided ring rather than TNA's situation. By people who have only have one vantage point (meaning they see the ring only from one of the SIX sides with no TV camera showing every conceivable angle), the ring announcer was probably greatly appreciated.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I'm sorry It's Damn Real, but you are being extremely petty. I mean first you had complaints about the six sided ring and Beer Money's name, along with having gripes about how Impact is being titled each and every week. Dude its really not a big deal. Next week you'll probably start a thread about how you dislike the camera angles or the Stacker 2 commercials.

I mean the majority of fans could care less about an announcer saying who is eliminated in one knockout battle royal match. I didn't even notice but I'm glad they did because a lot of times especially during the commercial breaks it's hard to tell who was eliminated. The diva's battle royal at Wrestlemania 25 pissed me off because no one bothered telling us who was there and who was eliminated.

I'm not picking on you man for criticizing TNA, but I just don't see any reason to criticize things that aren't that important.

I don't mind when the actual announcers for television broadcasts let the crowd know who is eliminated, but I just don't like the live interruption for every elimination. I know I'm being picky, but I notice these things, and I know if I notice it, then others do as well. Some things are less important than others, but the way I see it, if you have an 800 lb. gorilla in the room (bad storylines, let's say) and a small spider (arena announcements for what's happening in a match), and both need to go, what does it matter if you eliminate the small spider first?

 

[PEP3]

I don't mind when the actual announcers for television broadcasts let the crowd know who is eliminated, but I just don't like the live interruption for every elimination. I know I'm being picky, but I notice these things, and I know if I notice it, then others do as well. Some things are less important than others, but the way I see it, if you have an 800 lb. gorilla in the room (bad storylines, let's say) and a small spider (arena announcements for what's happening in a match), and both need to go, what does it matter if you eliminate the small spider first?

Don't get me wrong, IDR. I understand your point here. But fine-tuning (which is what you're more or less talking about, I think) is something that should be done after all the major issues are handled. Right now, TNA has improved leaps and bounds in terms of storylines, character development and overall watch-ability during the last couple months. Having a ring announcer calling a battle royal so the fans aren't confused or titling each program should be the LEAST of people's concerns and certainly not detract from the general vast improvement visible in the product.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Don't get me wrong, IDR. I understand your point here. But fine-tuning (which is what you're more or less talking about, I think) is something that should be done after all the major issues are handled. Right now, TNA has improved leaps and bounds in terms of storylines, character development and overall watch-ability during the last couple months. Having a ring announcer calling a battle royal so the fans aren't confused or titling each program should be the LEAST of people's concerns and certainly not detract from the general vast improvement visible in the product.

I understand what you are saying, but I just don't agree. I don't think it's necessary to fix smaller problems only after you've fixed larger ones, because the bigger ones aren't going to tank the program.

The IWC may see less than stellar story-writing as a blown transmission, but I see it more like a tire that's a little low on air. If the story lines were horrible, I could understand, but they're not, so I don't see the problem with adjusting small things while the company also works on the larger ones, which require more time anyway. To use another analogy, fix the broken headlight before/while you replace the tire.

 

[PEP3]

I understand what you are saying, but I just don't agree. I don't think it's necessary to fix smaller problems only after you've fixed larger ones, because the bigger ones aren't going to tank the program.

The IWC may see less than stellar story-writing as a blown transmission, but I see it more like a tire that's a little low on air. If the story lines were horrible, I could understand, but they're not, so I don't see the problem with adjusting small things while the company also works on the larger ones, which require more time anyway. To use another analogy, fix the broken headlight before/while you replace the tire.

Got it.

In that case then, I wholeheartedly disagree. I think that having an announcer declare who has/hasn't been eliminated fully appropriate. As many before have echoed, pointing this fact out as a major flaw in the programming just reads as petty.

 

[NSL]

I actually loved the announcer naming when someone was eliminated. If you're in the crowd, watching a six-sided ring, it's hard to see who goes out for most of the match. Think of the rules...They need to go over the top. If you're looking through a crowd of 8 people, and see someone go out, how are you to know if they're eliminated or not?

It would have been confusing to watch if I were there live, and no one said who was actually eliminated or not.

 

[johnbragg]

Well, I think if you successfully fix four or five small things, it may come off as a big improvement to the viewer anyway. Marginal improvements add up. If you stopped titling shows, stopped announcing eliminations, tweaked the arena lighting, got better cameras, improved the camera angles (and all five of those things were clear but small improvements) it would add up to a big improvement in the show, even if the viewer couldn't say exactly why.

Some of these things, though, we aren't sure that changing them would be an improvement--titling shows, announcing eliminations and the six-sided rings have defenders.

Did they stop the match to announce the elimination, or did the ringside announcer just announce it?

 

[Pedro08]

Sorry. I'm gonna have to go with the majority on this one. I don't see anything wrong with the ring announcer announcing who has been eliminated during a battle royal.

I think that it's more for the benefit of the live audience than it is for those watching on tv. Have you ever been to a live show? It can be pretty tough to follow all the action during a battle royal. Sure you may be able to see someone go over the top rope on the side opposite of where you are sitting, but did their feet touch the ground? Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it's not.

I think having the ring announcer announcing who has been elimated dring a battle royal has been around for a long time. It's not someting that TNA came up with.

 

[johnbragg]

I finally got home and watched the KO battle royale, just for you guys.

I have no problem with the idea of announcing the eliminations, but the way it was done came off poorly. It sounded cheap and tinny. Either don't announce it, or do it in a way that comes off well on TV. Hook the announcer's or the ref's mike up to the arena PA system, or run it through a soundboard or something.

Announcing the eliminations--good, but make it sound good. Get someone with a deep "radio announcer voice" to do it, or play with the sound board until the guy you have sounds like that.

"Hamada eliminates Taylor Wilde" with some reverb would make each elimination sound like a big deal, an accomplishment. Something to build feuds over, something to build up a wrestler's credibility. It just came off as some guy yelling "Taylor Wilde is eliminated!" in the background.