WWE: TV For Kids; Commentary For... Who Exactly?

[ABMorales787]

A few days ago I was eating at a restaurant with my laptop on. A little kid walks in with an Edge action figure. He noticed me watching TLC so he sat behind me. The kid watched it but tended to fast forward it. During the Intercontinental Championship match, Matt Striker said that it had been 20 years since the title had changed hands in Texas. It was wrong. At WM 25 Rey Mysterio won it there, in 2008's Night Of Champions Kofi won it (Dallas), Umaga in 2007 and Kane in 2002. The kid behind me pointed out that WM 25 took place in Texas. He was about 8 years old. And he saw through Matt's mistake. Wow. That event featured a lot of mistakes. Yokozuna being the last WWE Champion born outside the U.S. The ECW title not changing hands in Texas (Nitro 2007, Mark Henry 2008) and more. This has been toned down considerably but is still there. I just want to know, what's the point of this? They make up these facts and if they don't make up facts, they toss out totally random bits of information that nobody cares about. What exactly is the aim in "teaching" the fans these oftenly nonsensical facts? It can't be to ignore past workers, they overlook current workers as well. I am not berating the commentary team. I'm just wondering what is the point to this "style". To me it's going nowhere. To you?

 

[Sean Valjean]

First off, you should have given a high five to that kid and bought him a dessert; I would have.

Secondly, I don't mind the little facts that are thrown out every now and them; well, when they're correct anyway.

I think it's a good way to educate younger/newer fans of wrestling and could possibly get them interested in older matches. They could hear something like "The WWE title hasn't changed hands here since 'such and such' match 8 years ago" and might want to check that match out. Personally, I think it's fun to be reminded of that kind of stuff; sometimes they'll say something that even I've forgotten, and I have a pretty good memory when it comes to wrestling. If nothing else, it could be done just so the announce team seems competent and informative. Besides, it's such a small part of the overall commentary that it doesn't really affect the overall enjoyment of a show.

Though I do hate when they get their facts wrong, and Striker is becoming one of the worst (as you've pointed out), but Cole has been the absolute king being historically incorrect. I'm sure that they omit or edit anything involving a superstar they don't want mention (Beniot) or something equally unpleasant, but if they can't state the true fact, I'd rather them not mention it at all. Better it be forgotten than to be wrong, IMO.

 

[Klown_Karnage]

I concur in giving props to that kid you met. He at least knows his sports entertainment history.

I personally began wondering along a similar line at some point previous, listening to the obviously wrong information that the commentators were spewing out with all the confidence of Icarus headed towards the sun. At first, I began wondering if these so-called experts were actually as ignorant as they appeared to be about their own subject. I mean, these guys actually belong to the company, many of whom have lived through the events they're giving false info about. They can't be that stupid.

Then I got the idea which may be paranoid and untrue, but is as good an explanation as any: they know the info is false and they are purposely misleading the fans. Y'see, while many of us superfans do take the time to go over the old matches and pay attention to what's what, it's more than likely generally assumed by the company that the average fan in the stands doesn't. So, if a commentator can hype or overhype a particular aspect of a match with some judiciously applied false info, then he will. This may be why many commentators play slightly oblivious and ill-informed characters...just in case they're called on that.

Again, I might be totally off, but you've gotta wonder sometimes if this pretense of ignorance is an attempt to outwit the fans.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

I'm going to give you a third on giving that kid some props.

I think sometimes they end up simply forgetting these events. You know, the guys work every week out of the year, it's bound to happen that someone will forget what title changed when, and I'm also fairly certain they don't have a guy back in Stamford, CT in the video library fact-checking every single claim that's made on TV. I think they're a bit more lenient on the mistakes they're making because their core demographic right now are kids who weren't watching back when we were. If someone were to call them out, they can say all kinds of things that would make sense:

1. "We're not recognizing certain champions (Benoit for example)."
2. "That was a different incarnation of the title."
3. "Whoops!"

Plus, the factoids never really get brought up again, especially if they're wrong, so it's not as if there's any real harm in making a mistake or two.

 

[JGlass]

Too many lies... too many lies...

I remember my least favorite flubbed statistic ever. I believe it was Cole or maybe even JR who said it, and that was that Triple H tapping out to Cena at WM22 was the first time someone tapped out in a Heavyweight championship match at Wrestlemania, when just TWO YEARS EARLIER Benoit made Triple H tap out to win the belt.

Now this is clearly a way of erasing Benoit's legacy, but it's still insulting to the fans who know better. They tell us bold faced lies, and 9 out of 10 times, we see right through them, whether we are 28 years old or 8 years old.

Even worse, how many times did they say the whole 25% chance of retaining thing coming up to and during the Fatal 4way PPV? That was insulting not only because of the amount of times they repeated it, but because of the fact that it's not logically true.

I have very mixed feelings about the WWE announcing. I like Josh Matthews and King, and even Cole when he's not trying to play a character. I can't stand Striker, and Grisham is yet to impress me. I would like to see Matthews and Abraham Washington cover Smackdown, as they could have a good back and forth.

Anyways, the WWE announcers do treat fans like they are stupid, and it's very unfortunate as it really takes away from the television product.

Too many lies... too many lies...

 

[twentytwo]

1) Who goes out to eat at a public place and watches wrestling on their laptop while there?

2) The kid decided to sit behind you...? Was he alone...? Seems weird that a kid that age would have clout over where he gets to sit. And if I'm taking my kid out to eat at a resteraunt, I'm not sitting next to the 18 year old who's watching wrestling on his lap top. That's weird.

3) Matt Striker is the worst announcer in the business. He shouldn't be on TV. I have no idea who the commentary is for. I believe that the commentary is the worst it's ever been right now.

Cole I can take. Lawler and Stryker are horrible and need to be shown the door.

When he retires, I very much hope Jericho becomes an announcer. I bet he would be phenomenal. Much like Jesse was.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

1) Who goes out to eat at a public place and watches wrestling on their laptop while there?

If you live in the city, you see about three guys with their laptops every time you enter a restaurant. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an uncommon thing.

2) The kid decided to sit behind you...? Was he alone...? Seems weird that a kid that age would have clout over where he gets to sit. And if I'm taking my kid out to eat at a resteraunt, I'm not sitting next to the 18 year old who's watching wrestling on his lap top. That's weird.

Way to be judgmental.

3) Matt Striker is the worst announcer in the business. He shouldn't be on TV. I have no idea who the commentary is for. I believe that the commentary is the worst it's ever been right now.

Really? Really? Were you around for Mike Adamle? Matt Striker honestly isn't that bad. His voice isn't hard to listen to, and I simply don't pay enough attention to the commentary to hear serious tongue slips and errors every 10 minutes. But I see enough complaining in the forums' live discussions about Michael Cole messing up. Not so much Matt Striker.

When he retires, I very much hope Jericho becomes an announcer. I bet he would be phenomenal. Much like Jesse was.

What makes him better than Matt Striker or anyone else on commentary? He's been on commentary, in character, as a heel before. Of course that would be cool to listen to on commentary, but there would be no reason to be Jericho's on-screen persona every Monday on commentary.

 

[1_2_3 Kid]

I have to admit..

I am somewhat of a commentary buff. I have always loved the way they mix cheap comedy into the show. Some do it good and some do it bad. Maybe its just them reading the fact wrong or whathave you, but shit happens. I'm not too sure if its being done on purpose, but hey, you never really know.

I love cheap humor. The King was and sometimes still can be one entertaining motherfucker. Especially when he would wrestle a match, go back to doing color, and be just ripping into people all night long. Lol.. damn those were the days weren't they? A lot has toned down since than, and to be honest its perfectly fine. Though, most of the "wrong" facts just tend to go over my head, I get wrapped up in the ambiance of it all. God dammit I'm a MARK for pro wrestling and will always try to see the good in anything that is associated with this buisness.

 

[JGlass]

Cole I can take. Lawler and Stryker are horrible and need to be shown the door.

When he retires, I very much hope Jericho becomes an announcer. I bet he would be phenomenal. Much like Jesse was.

Lawler isn't terrible. In fact, I think he's one of the best they have right now.

I do agree with you that Jericho would be fun on commentary. Hopefully he'd use his face character, because face Jericho is one of the funniest wrestlers out there.

What makes him better than Matt Striker or anyone else on commentary? He's been on commentary, in character, as a heel before. Of course that would be cool to listen to on commentary, but there would be no reason to be Jericho's on-screen persona every Monday on commentary.

Matt Striker is just awful. He makes up names for moves, he feeds us misinformation, and his heel character lacks reason. I know part of the heel role is to be a nonsensical hypocrite, but he just drives me nuts.

I have to admit..

I am somewhat of a commentary buff. I have always loved the way they mix cheap comedy into the show. Some do it good and some do it bad. Maybe its just them reading the fact wrong or whathave you, but shit happens. I'm not too sure if its being done on purpose, but hey, you never really know.

Don't worry friend, you are not alone. I'm also a big fan of the commentary part of professional wrestling, and the cheap comedy is my favorite part. Sometimes when I watch I imagine what I would say if I was calling the match.

I love cheap humor. The King was and sometimes still can be one entertaining motherfucker. Especially when he would wrestle a match, go back to doing color, and be just ripping into people all night long. Lol.. damn those were the days weren't they? A lot has toned down since than, and to be honest its perfectly fine. Though, most of the "wrong" facts just tend to go over my head, I get wrapped up in the ambiance of it all. God dammit I'm a MARK for pro wrestling and will always try to see the good in anything that is associated with this buisness.

King is my favorite commentator right now too, and for that exact reason. He makes mistakes sometimes, but don't we all? He's still funny, and he makes fun of himself sometimes. I really get the feeling that he and Cole enjoy working together, and that makes it fun to listen to.

 

[1_2_3 Kid]

Gotta agree there with ya Jglass..

They sure do seem like they play off of each other a lot. I wasn't too sure about them in the beginning, because honestly, I really wasn't fond of Cole taking the postion once held by the greatest comentator ever, Good ol JR.

Matter of fact, I would even say that King took Cole under his wing. Sure Cole was always backstage at all the ppvs with coach and they would do the lower level job, but King really opened him up. Cole is not all that bad. Is it bad that the man has passion? Sometimes the way it comes across is rather lame or "overbearing" but he is still atleast showing emotion and not running a dry program. You make due with what ya got and my friend, we got a lot right now. WWE is working hard at giving us what we want, even with a PG rating, they are really stepping the game up.

 

[ABMorales787]

1) Who goes out to eat at a public place and watches wrestling on their laptop while there?

Internet hot spot.

2) The kid decided to sit behind you...? Was he alone...? Seems weird that a kid that age would have clout over where he gets to sit. And if I'm taking my kid out to eat at a resteraunt, I'm not sitting next to the 18 year old who's watching wrestling on his lap top. That's weird.

Do I need to paint the whole picture so you can see the point? Of course his father was there. The kid asked him "Wasn't Wrestlemania in Texas? Rey Mysterio won that belt there" following Matt's blunder.

3) Matt Striker is the worst announcer in the business. He shouldn't be on TV. I have no idea who the commentary is for. I believe that the commentary is the worst it's ever been right now.

That's your opinion. I just think he's trying way too hard to impress.

Cole I can take. Lawler and Stryker are horrible and need to be shown the door.

Cole is worse. He thinks he's good. He thinks people like that "vintage" shit. If anybody is a bigger puppet in that booth it's him.

When he retires, I very much hope Jericho becomes an announcer. I bet he would be phenomenal. Much like Jesse was.

I hope. But I doubt he'll stick around for it.He can get larger roles than that if he retires. I'm might be crazy, but John Cena could also make a good commentator. He's pretty natural on the mic and has a pretty serious tone of voice.

I for one, believe that the fact that they are mostly told what to say, they tend to get sloppy when they are left alone. It's like if they panic and try to impress by sounding smart. Jerry Lawler is evident of it. He forgets the wrestler's name and even confuses them. You also have Michael Cole who accidentally has spoiled matches on several occasions. Recall the night The Miz and Big Show won the Tag Team belts. During the match as they were going to a break Michael shouts "who will be the new tag team champions?" Well we got new tag team champions. Being told what to say for too long leaves them blind when they have to go on their own.

 

[Cartoon2]

I remember my least favorite flubbed statistic ever. I believe it was Cole or maybe even JR who said it, and that was that Triple H tapping out to Cena at WM22 was the first time someone tapped out in a Heavyweight championship match at Wrestlemania, when just TWO YEARS EARLIER Benoit made Triple H tap out to win the belt.

Now this is clearly a way of erasing Benoit's legacy, but it's still insulting to the fans who know better. They tell us bold faced lies, and 9 out of 10 times, we see right through them, whether we are 28 years old or 8 years old.

Benoit was still alive at the time, and he actually competed at that Wrestlemania. Just sayin.

Anyways, yeah that kid is pretty awesome.

Recently, I've noticed a lot of screw ups on commentary. Cole does it all the time. If he brings up the facts so much, shouldn't he have his facts straight?

 

[peep4life]

they mess up all the time like saying this title has not changed hands in this cty for this many years and im like yeah it did or like during a match and you see like a awesome move and there like "i have never seen this before" and im like i just saw at blah PPV or BLAH show but it could be because i got a great memory for wrestling but there supposed to be the announcers and supposed to give out facts and call the match.

KING he still gots it but i think the PG rating hurts him alot cause he cant yell PUPPIES lol.
COLE i personally dont mind him espically now he tries to be all serious and ripping all the faces he funny but i think his best days were on SD!.
STRIKER well hes MATT he plays his role really well as the smart kinda asshole hes a former teacher so he acts all smart even though he sounds dumb sometimes and i think he does good(sometimes)
MATTHEWS i think hes the best out of all of them
Grisham well i really cant say much hes only been a commentator for like a year or 2 but i dont mind for now I put him back as a backstage announcer he did better there
i would put KING and JR back on RAW andif not JR i would MATTHEWS
COLE and STRIKER/MATHEWSon SD!
and dont care for NXT

 

[mayankeagle]

While it is ok to quote history to let the younger fans know about it, the worst part is that the WWE forgets its own history while reminding them. I remember once Taker was facing big Daddy V and they said that this is the first time that the Undertaker is facing big Daddy V in singles' competition. I laughed out. I mean, Taker has been kicking a** of Mabel, Viscera since more than a decade in all kinds of matches, be it singles, casket, handicap, tag team, etc. Yeah they treated big Daddy V as a separate character but everyone knew he was Mabel/ Viscera. Its not like Isaac Yankem or the fake Diesel who suddenly became Kane with no links to the past character. Even in Big Daddy V's case, the WWE acknowledges that he was Mabel/ Viscera (e.g., in their recent listing for most scariest superstars or best big men). So I don't like it when the WWE uses these kinds of stupid facts just to make the match seem interesting to younger folks because it makes the commentators (who state these facts) look like idiots in front of us. I mean, even if a kid had seen Viscera in 2005/ 2006, and couldn't recognize that he was Big Daddy V in 2008, he's gotta be blind.

 

[EliteDiva]

I think the point for commentary is to bring up past events and info of the competitors for new viewers as if they recap things, but through words.

If that is indeed the point for commentary then the commentators aren't doing their jobs if they continue to bring up false facts.

Like for example, everytime Gail is in action Cole ALWAYS bring up she is a 2-time champ, but I recall she had only won it once and up to this day Cole never corrected himself.

 

[killerd105]

Well it seems to me that these commentators are as human as you and me. What i mean by that is that some matches you remember of the top of your head and some others you don't. Most of us have trouble remembering what happened two PPVs ago (unless its the main event). So what makes us think that a WWE commentator is going to remember a 5 minute match that happened a year or two years ago. Too me it seems like we as people remember the last five minutes of a PPV when the title finally changes hands and the celebration in the ring afterwards.. we're definitely not going to remember what match kicked off the show

 

[Reddannihilation]

I'm not a fan of this commentary style, funnily enough it's this exact style that Joey Styles ripped on during his worked shoot a few years back. They're focusing less on the in-ring content and spending their time trying to tell a story. It was fine years ago with guys like JR, King, Schiavone, etc. Dropping bits of info relevant to the match in between calling the action. But this change of focus to bringing up irrelevant "facts" is just downright annoying. Of course the biggest offender is Striker (mainly because he sucks ass) who really is better as the "host" type announcer he's been on NXT, but Cole and Lawler are guilty of it as well. I'm not a fan and really would like to see commentary head back to the style it was in the early 2000's were it was a combination of story-telling and actual match analysis.

 

[Vintage]

I would probably say I'm more into the commentary side of wrestling than the average person. A lot of times I have to watch matches twice because I spent more time listing to the commentators than watching the actual match.


I really don't think that these announcers are allowed to say much that isn't fed to them in their headsets. If you notice during matches there is A LOT of awkward silence. I think these erroneous facts are just more examples of WWE re-writing their history on the fly. They seem to only want to make stuff that happened since about 2000 relevant.
The commentators can't be that clueless on their own, I simply refuse to believe they are all that incompetent.

I honestly feel WWE wouldn't even have color commentators if they felt they can get away with it. They don't embrace their history, they are ashamed of it. There are certain people they are ok reminiscing about, there are many they rather pretend never existed. They probably don't want you to try and watch their older product so they just lie about it so we don't youtube the footage.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

That kid knows his stuff ehh...CLAP!! CLAP!! CLAP!!..

TBH, Most businesses do this, it's not like they have forgotten the past, but they make the false comments to sometimes fill up blank commentary space and I also think they do it to add that bit off spice to the match...

I think WWE think its hardcore fans don't check specific details..well I for one do!!

 

[Lionheart_Y2J_fan.]

yea it's true. commentary is pretty bad these days. matt striker is so annoying he makes my ears bleed. especially whenever "oohhhhh!!!!" whenever there's a big move or a change in the match. i get it, he's trying to be enthusiastic but there's a limit. JR might of gotten really enthusiastic before but that wasn't annoying, IMO it was actually pretty awesome whenever he would go "good god all mighty!! good god all mighty!!" or "STONE COLD STONE COLD STONE COLD!!!" lol. or when king would do the high pitched "lookout!"

Another thing that irritates me is king all of a sudden liking all the faces!
whatever happened to king calling everybody idiots and liking all the heels and going crazy over the divas?? the only thing he does now whenever he sees divas is say something stupid like "my favorite part of the night!" whatever happened to "puppies!". another person who the wwe commentary truly needs to get back is Tazz. Yes i know he's in TNA but vince needs to give him a call and try to get rid of striker.

 

[Judgeman03]

I gave up on the WWE commentary team when Jim Ross left. As far as I'm concerned, the WWE commentary team does nothing but parrot exactly what Vince McMahon wants them to say. Yes, I know this has been the case for years, but now in the era of your Micheal Coles and Matt Strykers, its become so obvious that they are being told what to say.

Which brings me to the the commentary "flubs"

I say that with quotations because it seems to me that these guys aren't really making mistakes, so much that they are being told to give mis-information. Its just WWE's using their revisionist mentality to write their past in order to fit the situation at hand. I'll give you an example: When Taker and Edge were set to have their TLC match last year, they spent the entire build-up on the fact that Edge supposedly had never lost a TLC match. Which is great build-up, except that Edge DID lose, to Cena at ONS. But it sounds better to say that he didn;t because it makes the build-up better. WWE doesn;t care about re-writting their history because its their history. Its agravating, but its never gonna end anytime soon.

 

["Cool Guy" Jensen]

I, too, have noticed many... countless mistakes while listening to WWE commentary of the years. The problem is, when I first started to watch WWE, the commentators for Raw and Smackdown were, Jim Ross with Jerry Lawler and Michael Cole with Tazz. Those were two of the best combinations of WWE commentary that you can get. Probably, the worst lie you can get was from "The King", but that was only because he was more of a wrestler and not as much of a journalist. J.R. and Cole are journalists and know their history (for the most part), and Tazz mostly talked about what was happening inside the ring and not much else.

What this teaches us is... if you want to learn about the history of sports entertainment... you need to do your own research. WWE commentary is really for the one's with a short attention span and just watch WWE just to watch. Those, like myself, who really love sports entertainment will actually take the time to catch those mistakes and actually listen to what we hear. Only learning about history from what you hear is really nothing. You need to take the time and find your own research.

So, your question is quite interesting! WWE is TV for kids. But who is WWE commentary for? It's one thing for you to watch WWE and let the commentator's words just pass by you. It's another to listen to the words and actually make sure they're true... or atleast make sense. No matter what age you are... whether you're 5 or 8 or 11 or 11 or 21 or 32 or 57. You'll notice something at some degree, big or small. Misinformation goes a long way in WWE commentary and it needs to stop. Which is why I'd like them to bring back J.R. Atleast for a little bit.

 

[ipswichicon80]

I watched the 91 event battle royal at the Albert hall the other day day and hearing gorilla and heenan after listening to Cole/Lawler/Stirker on ppvs was like eating chocolate after eating crap.
The current announce team is awful. King used to be great but now,as a face,seems like he can't really be bothered calling the action and would rather take cheap shots at Striker.Cole has never been any good IMO and yet has managed to get worse.I did like Striker,but he makes a huge amount of mistakes.
Also, as a couple of people have pointed out,they are fed a lot of lines though the headset,so how much is their fault, and how much is the fault of Vince telling them what to say is any ones guess(ever wonder why one of the worst play by play guys in history is giving announcers advice on what to say?He's the boss I guess).