WWF announcing debate mega-thread

[Loss]

So if Gorilla is bad, what does that make Michael Cole? By that criteria, has WWE ever had a "good" play-by-play guy? Just Jim Ross, I guess?

Vince at times, especially before they went national, but otherwise, not really. (I say that not to declare it to be true. I don't have that power. I'm just stating my viewpoint, obviously.)

 

There are many things the WWF has usually done well. Announcing has never really been one.

 

Of course Gorilla is way better than Cole.

[khawk20]

By that criteria, has WWE ever had a "good" play-by-play guy? Just Jim Ross, I guess?

If you want to include the 70's in this question, Vince McMahon was a very good play by play guy. For the most part he let the action do the talking. He was solo back then, so it was a far different setup than the "someone has to be talking at all times" mentality that took over during the Hogan years and continues to this day.

[Loss]

To their credit, they have gone silent at times during big angles the last few years, which I think has been a welcome change.

[khawk20]

To their credit, they have gone silent at times during big angles the last few years, which I think has been a welcome change.

I didn't mean to specify "modern wrestling" when I said that, as it's been going on for decades now.

 

Nice to know that someone gets hitting the 'off' button on the mics once in a while is helpful to the presentation.

 

...and of course it isn't unique to wrestling, as most major sports have full-scale talk-a-thons in the announce booth these days.

[Coffey]

To their credit, they have gone silent at times during big angles the last few years, which I think has been a welcome change.

They should have done that last night after the Jericho promo. Instead of going right to commercial following it, Lawler made sure to shit on it first so that was the last thing you heard instead of Jericho's first words since his return.

[rzombie1988]

Yes, kids who grow up now in 20 years will be looking back saying that all the people who voted on Michael Cole for worst announcer were stupid, that he's the standard for announcers, he was so funny, witty, his insults were great, and that Mason Ryan was really a fantastic in-ring worker and the guys like Dolph Ziggler who diss him in shoot interviews were just bitter old overrated hacks.

Has there ever been a positive word said about the announcing of Duke Doherty? That of Superstar Billy Graham? That of Larry Zbyszko or Rob Bartlett? Are there people today who claim that Sid or Giant Gonzalez was really underrated?

 

Looking back at stuff you first saw a while ago doesn't mean that you're flip-flopping your opinion on it. Plenty of times it results in saying, "Oh, yeah, now I remember why I hated that."

 

Hate to be the one to do this and I swear I'm not trolling here but:

 

- I don't mind Superstar as an announcer. He shows some energy and I think he brings out the face's feelings/thoughts well. He can be an addition when he is into a match or a wrestler. Should he be doing big shows? No. But he'd be perfect as a third man in the booth.

 

- I think Sid was fine. His peak was surely in the WWF with the fistbumps. I thought he played his role well over the years. He always came across as someone you didn't want to mess with and his moves worked for him. A good example of this is his RR match with HBK. I thought this was maybe Sid's best match. He may have stuck to the giant style of wrestling too much though.

 

Also, any announcer in any sport is told to commentate off what they see on the tv only.

 

Count me in on those who do not see pointing out a mistake as bashing a guy, although it makes much more sense to do it when it's a heel who screwed up than a face. Gorilla usually mentioned it when it was a heel doing it. He also said it in a way that was more advising than this guy is an idiot. He's very different from Cole. Cole points out things that have nothing to do with the match and is more bashing a guy than giving advice. I would probably put Cole as maybe the worst announcer of all time. People like Crusher really really sucked and were inaudible, but atleast they didn't trash guys.

[Matt D]

I only like Superstar and Lord Alfred together and then it's not in a "they're good" sort of way but in a "what the hell are they talking about?" entertainment sort of way.

[Loss]

Sid was great until the bell rung. At that point, he no longer seemed all that scary. I'd say the same for Nash at his worst actually (He has periods where he was fine.) They don't need to be superworkers at that size, but being able to portray themselves as a threat through their matches in the same way they did leading up to them would have helped both guys out. But in Sid's case, he was so clumsy and couldn't even throw a forearm without botching it, and any feeling of this guy being a threat that was there before was suddenly gone. That's what people are getting at when they call him a bad worker -- not that he should have been able to do moonsaults and a bunch of suplexes, but that he should have been able to execute a few basic wrestling moves in decent fashion.

[Ricky Jackson]

Superstar was a better announcer than Ernie Ladd, I'll give him that. And Mongo. Probably some others. Still the shits IMO.

[El-P]

Sid was great until the bell rung. At that point, he no longer seemed all that scary. I'd say the same for Nash at his worst actually (He has periods where he was fine.) They don't need to be superworkers at that size, but being able to portray themselves as a threat through their matches in the same way they did leading up to them would have helped both guys out. But in Sid's case, he was so clumsy and couldn't even throw a forearm without botching it, and any feeling of this guy being a threat that was there before was suddenly gone. That's what people are getting at when they call him a bad worker -- not that he should have been able to do moonsaults and a bunch of suplexes, but that he should have been able to execute a few basic wrestling moves in decent fashion.

Sid had an unbelievable physical presence. His body, his face, his maneurisms were great. Watching Sid squashes in 1991 is pretty entertaining.

That being said, I agree with waht Loss said. The issue is that he was physically imposing, but he could only look devastating on offense if someone was making him look devastating. Otherwise, Sid could look like a clumsy goof. He was especially goofy on selling and bumping. That said, there has been times I enjoyed Sid. His super hot period in 1996/early 97 constitutes his peak to me, working with guys like Vader, Shawn or Bret surely helped things a lot. But Sid was all about what the other guy would do.

I feel Kevin Nash was better than that. More dynamic to his few moves I thought. It's no wonder Nash had much better matches than Sid had with the same opponents, and a variety of good matches against a variety of workers.

[FLIK]

Hmm, no denying Nash's very best stuff was light years ahead of the best Sid match but i'm not sure if you sat me down and said I had to choose between watching 100 Sid matches in a row or 100 Nash matches in a row I wouldn't pick Sid.

[Gregor]

The comment I made earlier wasn't really about Sid and Rob Bartlett. I meant it as a pretty non-controversial counter to what Meltzer wrote - a lot of times, people look back on stuff without really changing their opinion of it. It looks like I did a lousy job of choosing universally disliked stuff, though (and, no, I don't think anyone was trolling me).

 

On Sid:

Sid was great until the bell rung. At that point, he no longer seemed all that scary. I'd say the same for Nash at his worst actually (He has periods where he was fine.) They don't need to be superworkers at that size, but being able to portray themselves as a threat through their matches in the same way they did leading up to them would have helped both guys out. But in Sid's case, he was so clumsy and couldn't even throw a forearm without botching it, and any feeling of this guy being a threat that was there before was suddenly gone.

I agree with this for the most part. It wasn't just the execution but also the choice of moves. He'd have matches that were all holds, and it wasn't really possible for him to look like a scary monster who was really going to hurt his opponent that way.

 

The issue is that he was physically imposing, but he could only look devastating on offense if someone was making him look devastating. Otherwise, Sid could look like a clumsy goof. He was especially goofy on selling and bumping. That said, there has been times I enjoyed Sid. His super hot period in 1996/early 97 constitutes his peak to me, working with guys like Vader, Shawn or Bret surely helped things a lot. But Sid was all about what the other guy would do.

I feel Kevin Nash was better than that. More dynamic to his few moves I thought. It's no wonder Nash had much better matches than Sid had with the same opponents, and a variety of good matches against a variety of workers.

I think Sid was generally more over as a face than as a heel, and I think it might have had a lot to do with his offense. As a face, it's not as important for him to actually hurt the heels as much as it is for him to beat them. His clotheslines in the International Incident six-man looked pretty weak, but it didn't matter because it was Sid coming in and cleaning house, so the fans went crazy. When he actually had to build heat on a face by making it look like he was killing the guy, he didn't do as well. I might be reading too much into it, and maybe it was just that Sid was a guy whom people wanted to cheer.

 

Nash could have matches in which he looked like a killer. In the IYH match against Michaels, he seems dangerous, even when he does stuff that he could have done without the no-DQ stipulation. He does a huge side slam and then gets this big grin on his face afterwards, as if he's just tickled by the extent to which he's killing the guy.

 

I think Sid was fine. His peak was surely in the WWF with the fistbumps. I thought he played his role well over the years. He always came across as someone you didn't want to mess with and his moves worked for him. A good example of this is his RR match with HBK. I thought this was maybe Sid's best match. He may have stuck to the giant style of wrestling too much though.

The last time I watched the Rumble match, Sid didn't seem scary at all. Most of it is Sid keeping Michaels in a camel clutch or a bearhug. Michaels doesn't seem like he was in danger of being destroyed; he just needs to finally get out of those holds. I actually like the Survivor Series match they had, and part of it is that they take a different approach to making Sid look unbeatable. It's not as much about Sid's offense as it is about what happens when Michaels tries his signature stuff. Sid catches all of it; it seems like Michaels can't even hurt him. I thought it was a lot more effective than the Rumble match. Then again, I'm talking about move selection here, and, for all I know, Michaels could have called both of those matches, which would place that criticism on him rather than on Sid.

[Matt D]

I think we need to break off to have Sid talk.

 

EDIT: also, how the hell did Monsoon win worst WON announcer in 93 when Rob Bartlet did at least a quarter of the year on Raw. I am just BOGGLED by that.

 

Also, we all took crap way too seriously in 97. Dusty won worst announcer then.

[El-P]

The issue is that he was physically imposing, but he could only look devastating on offense if someone was making him look devastating. Otherwise, Sid could look like a clumsy goof. He was especially goofy on selling and bumping. That said, there has been times I enjoyed Sid. His super hot period in 1996/early 97 constitutes his peak to me, working with guys like Vader, Shawn or Bret surely helped things a lot. But Sid was all about what the other guy would do.

I feel Kevin Nash was better than that. More dynamic to his few moves I thought. It's no wonder Nash had much better matches than Sid had with the same opponents, and a variety of good matches against a variety of workers.

I think Sid was generally more over as a face than as a heel, and I think it might have had a lot to do with his offense. As a face, it's not as important for him to actually hurt the heels as much as it is for him to beat them. His clotheslines in the International Incident six-man looked pretty weak, but it didn't matter because it was Sid coming in and cleaning house, so the fans went crazy. When he actually had to build heat on a face by making it look like he was killing the guy, he didn't do as well. I might be reading too much into it, and maybe it was just that Sid was a guy whom people wanted to cheer.

Actually that's an excellent point.

 

Nash could have matches in which he looked like a killer. In the IYH match against Michaels, he seems dangerous, even when he does stuff that he could have done without the no-DQ stipulation. He does a huge side slam and then gets this big grin on his face afterwards, as if he's just tickled by the extent to which he's killing the guy.

I think Nash is still underrated somewhat. Especially his WCW stint (the nWo one, not Master Blaster/OZ/Vinnie Vegas).

 

(If someone wants to break this into a Sid/Nash/how to work as a giant/monster, we'll probably be fine with it. Unless we're done already.)

[Coffey]

Superstar was a better announcer than Ernie Ladd, I'll give him that. And Mongo. Probably some others. Still the shits IMO.

Mongo was hilarious! "This place is apropos and that don't mean you're digging around in the dirt with farm implements, baby!"

[jdw]

Superstar was a better announcer than Ernie Ladd, I'll give him that. And Mongo. Probably some others. Still the shits IMO.

I think that's a good way to put it.

 

John

[jdw]

I think we need to break off to have Sid talk.

 

EDIT: also, how the hell did Monsoon win worst WON announcer in 93 when Rob Bartlet did at least a quarter of the year on Raw. I am just BOGGLED by that.

 

Also, we all took crap way too seriously in 97. Dusty won worst announcer then.

We always take crap much too seriously. Still do.

 

Folks who say that we shouldn't take crap too seriously are usually the folks who take crap too seriously and are upsets about people disagreeing with the crap they take too seriously.

 

 

John

[KB8]

Was Superstar better than Hillbilly Jim? Or was the one show I remember Hillbilly Jim doing commentary on the ONLY show he did commentary on and therefore wouldn't really be someone worth talking about in a discussion like this?

 

Didn't Neidhart do a few MSG shows in '91? I could swear he was with Monsoon and maybe Jesse for a few matches on Will's Steamboat set.

[Ricky Jackson]

Hillbilly did commentary for 7 MSG shows between Sept 89 and March 90 (Cawthon). I'm not as familiar with these MSG shows as I am with earlier ones, but I remember Hillbilly's commentary being quite terrible. Neidhart commentated on 2 shows in 91 (4/22 and 6/3).

[jdw]

Hillbilly was about as bad as one would expect. Standard cliches. Pops for at least *trying* to be a color commentator while in the booth rather than just fucking off, but he wasn't good.

 

John

[JerryvonKramer]

Thinking more on Gorilla and I wonder if there's an argument that Ventura and Heenan both carried him?

 

Like Ventura was great no matter who he was with. Stick him with Lord Alfred and Elvira and he's still awesome. Stick Monsoon with Lord Alfred and then it's just a tired cliche-ridden play-by-play guy struggling with an awkward partner (although Alfred is probably underrated for his subtle heelishness).

 

So maybe we can say that Monsoon is "carryable"? The sort of commentary equivalent of Luger in 88-9? That sounds wrong.

[Matt D]

I think we need to break off to have Sid talk.

 

EDIT: also, how the hell did Monsoon win worst WON announcer in 93 when Rob Bartlet did at least a quarter of the year on Raw. I am just BOGGLED by that.

 

Also, we all took crap way too seriously in 97. Dusty won worst announcer then.

We always take crap much too seriously. Still do.

 

Folks who say that we shouldn't take crap too seriously are usually the folks who take crap too seriously and are upsets about people disagreeing with the crap they take too seriously.

 

 

John

 

Trust me. I'm sure that in 97 I would have gotten pissed about dusty making fun of luchadors and not calling Chris Benoit matches well.

 

Now, my single favorite thing in all of wrestling in 1995 is Dusty wearing a witch's hat on WCW Prime.

[JerryvonKramer]

Coming back to the Ventura tip - I've been listening to a pile of 80s WWF reviews on various podcasts this week, a lot of travel. Talking about Review A Wai and similar such shows. etc.

 

Anyway, EVERY SHOW. And I mean EVERY SHOW, without fail, comments on how great Ventura is, how he made shitty matches more enjoyable, how he made stuff like the Dino Bravo weight-lifting segment from Rumble 88 from being awful to watchable, how he constantly put over the stars and the action and the storylines, how he is consistently smart, funny, etc.

 

For an accouncer to stand out THAT MUCH, with like 3 different sets of reviewers over 10+ shows he has to be special surely.

 

Incidentally, Monsoon gets a lot of stick for a lot of stuff:

 

-Repeatedly using "to Pearl Harbour" as a verb

- Repeatedly using the phrase "it's a happening"

- using the phrase "the excellence of execution" for wrestlers other than Bret

- not knowing the names of the Jumping Bomb Angels.

 

Also, ALL of these reviews have ragged on McMahon whenever he's been in the booth.

 

But the common factor is Jesse love.

[khawk20]

FWIW, I watched the 3/23/83 MSG show last night, in particular the Backlund-Muraco match. Monsoon was on commentary, solo. He was decent.

 

Maybe having to do the job by yourself is condusive to calling the action better, I don't know. I do know how much Monsoon and McMahon changed as announcers when they had colour guys with them, although in fairness the over-the-top announcing atmosphere of later-80's WWF broadcasts didn't become like that because of an addition to the booth.

 

Still, it was interesting to hear Monsoon as a solo guy.

[Matt D]

I'll say this. Sometimes when working, especially if doing a tedious task, I'll hop on youtube and put on an old PTW or Wrestling Challenge or something and just listen to it while doing stuff. And it's entertaining enough that I enjoy the experience. I couldn't imagine doing that with a Tony Schiovane/David Crockett show (though I'd probably be okay with Mid South so long as Watts was there; he was so frigging entertaining).

 

Wrestling is more than just the matches. Wrestling announcing is more than just calling and explaining and putting in context what happens in the ring.