How important is commentary?

[sek69]

Wasn't it Kevin Steen who said he learned English from Jim Ross commentary on the wrestling he grew up watching? That seems like a pretty convincing argument re: the importance of commentary.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm watching 70s Mid-Atlantic tonight and most of the footage is just from Arenas, crowd noise but no commentary. I remember watchinh Flair vs. Morton years ago which also has no commentary. And there IS something to be said about watching wrestling this way. Just the crowd and nothing else.

 

I do love great commentary and would probably be more towards the camp that wants it most of the time. But in recent years I've also become a mark for watching 70s film clips.

 

The only thing I don't like is when it is completely silent. That's very hard to follow.

[The Thread Killer]

Commentary is really important, in my opinion, good commentary can make a bad match at least watchable, whereas bad commentary can make a good match unwatchable.

 

Somebody mentioned Ed Whalen? Don't get me started on Ed Whalen. I was a Stampede Wrestling fan during the mid-late eighties. You had Owen Hart, (and assorted other Harts of varying skill levels) Brian Pillman, Bad News Allen, The British Bulldogs, and others. Ed Whalen made a lot of those matches hard to sit through. The man was horrible. He wasn't just horrible, he was actually detrimental to the product.

 

First of all, when it came to actual commentary ability - he didn't have any. He didn't know the actual names of many of the moves, so he resorted to: "Oh, look at that!" Secondly, he had a well used bag of maddening clichés which he went to on an all too regular basis. A couple of prize examples would be: "This is a ring-a-ding-dong-dandy!" and "Malfunction at the junction!" So just listening to the man was painful.

 

On top of that, he had no respect whatsoever for Pro Wrestling OR Pro Wrestlers. Calling Stampede was not his full time job - he called Hockey Games (which he also sucked at, for the record.) He used to actually give interviews where he would mock Stampede Wrestling and make fun of wrestling. That's the guy you want as the face of your company when people turn on the television. Even worse, he used to conduct the interviews in the ring, during which he would inject himself, no-sell the storylines, and basically do everything an interviewer is NOT supposed to do. If he was on camera, he generally made it about himself, not the guy he was interviewing. Apparently, a lot of the wrestlers hated him, and if that is true, I can see why.

 

Last but not least, he actually sabotaged the product behind the scenes. Whenever there was bloodshed (and Calgary could be bloody at times) he would bitch to the Athletic Commission about it. He actually managed to get a show cancelled once, which was supposed to be a blow-off for a huge angle, because he bitched so much about the violence - they ended up having to do the show on an unregulated Indian Reservation that a lot of people couldn't get to. He was such a prick about it, it made the front page of the Calgary Newspaper.

 

All of this, and Stu Hart had to basically deal with the guy because he was part of the television deal, if I am not mistaken. If you read the book "Pain and Passion: The History of Stampede Wrestling" by Heath McCoy, you'll get to see just how horrible this old jerk was.

 

In short, whenever I hear somebody wax nostalgic about Ed Whalen and his stupid clichés, I have to fight the urge to slap them in the head with a phone book.

 

I used to be a big fan of the UFC. One of the (many) things that turned me off them was the commentary by Mike Goldberg and Joe Rogan. You'd think that calling an infinite number of fights over 20 years would have taught Mike Goldberg something about even the most rudimentary basics of martial arts, wouldn't you? Well, you'd be wrong. One of the last shows I ever saw, my friend and I started counting the number of moves which Goldberg got the names wrong. At 10, we stopped. Goldberg is an empty suit, a brainless company shill with no discernible personality of his own. He basically exists to speak on the rare occasions Joe Rogan isn't, at which time he'll spout the next event coming up, or shout out the name of the sponsors. We used to have a drinking game where you'd take a shot every time Mike Goldberg YELLED out: "THE ICEMAN...CHUCK LIDDELL!!!" during a UFC show. I'd tell you how it worked out, but I suffered an alcohol induced blackout so I can't remember. This is a guy who landed an NFL gig and fucked it up so bad that he got fired after a week. He made so many mistakes during the game that fans mocked him for it on twitter, so he cussed them out. I consider Mike Goldberg the Tony Schiavone of MMA.

 

His broadcast partner Joe Rogan is a problem all of his own. This guy has a McMahon sized ego, and with Goldberg as a broadcast partner, he basically has free reign to say whatever shit he wants, knowing that nobody with a brain will contradict him. But Rogan is really sneaky. He plays favorites in a huge way, and he will highlight everything his favorites do on commentary, no matter how insignificant the move is - all while either ignoring or downplaying what the opponent does. It is very subtle sometimes, at others it is very obvious. Guys like Michael Bisping, Joe Lauzon and especially Diego Sanchez have all benefited greatly from the verbal fluffing of Joe Rogan over the years. They are all talented fighters (to varying degrees) but Rogan will make them out to be much more skilled than they are. A lot of fans can't understand why Bisping and Sanchez have never won titles despite how "great" they are. Look back, and you can see how Rogan builds them up far beyond their skill levels, often based on things that don't even take place in the Octagon. He'll go on and on about what gym they train at, who they train with, and things they do in training...which is great except at the end of the day, there is a saying about fighters being a beast in the gym but a dud in the Octagon.

 

One of the greatest things I ever saw was when Diego Sanchez got a LHW Title Shot at BJ Penn, and Penn singlehandedly dismantled Sanchez. He didn't just beat him, he outclassed him, and embarrassed him. It wasn't even close, and he didn't beat him quickly either - he slow tortured the guy. Rogan had no choice but to try and make Penn out to be some sort of MMA GOD. And Penn is damn great, but also Sanchez just isn't anywhere NEAR as good as Rogan makes him out to be. Ironically, Penn is another one who has Rogan riding his jockstrap on a regular basis - the only difference is that Penn probably deserved a lot of the accolades.

 

What is worse is the guys who fight one of Rogan's favorites end up getting very subtly buried, or at the very least their own skills and abilities get downplayed in favor of one of Rogan's favorites. Once in rare while, a guy like Rampage Jackson or Frank Mir will publicly call Joe Rogan out on his bullshit, but for whatever reason, the UFC has decided that they want their "A" Commentary Team to consist of an idiot and a sycophant, so nothing ever changes.

 

I don't get it - back when PRIDE FC were still in business they had an outstanding commentary team in Steven Quardros and Bas Rutten, but for whatever reason the UFC never picked them up when they became available. Ask a lot of hardcore MMA fans about PRIDE and many of them will tell you that the highlights of the English language broadcasts was often the entertaining commentary of Quadros and Rutten. Those guys LOVED the fights and it showed and both knew their shit too. Then again, Goldberg and Rogan are company men, through and through. Quadros and Rutten would openly say when a fight sucked or a fighter was dogging it. Mike Goldberg either can't tell, or would never dare to say he was calling a boring fight.

 

Was anything worse than Tony Schiavone in WCW during their peak? The whole "greatest night in the history of our great sport" cliché basically ended up becoming a meme, but that guy was SO bad it almost defied description. As a play-by-play guy, you kind of have an unspoken obligation to be have SOME credibility, even in Pro Wrestling. Remember the infamous "Kennel From Hell" match with Al Snow and the Big Bossman? JR pretty much admitted on the air that match sucked. It may have got him some heat backstage, and I know the popular consensus around here is that JR is a vile human being or whatever, but as hyper as he could be with the STONE COLD STONE COLD STONE COLD, I never felt he was going to try and piss down your back and tell you it was raining. Schiavone? Forget it. That guy was the shill from hell. My favorite would be when he would criticize the WWF for doing a bait and switch on RAW, when Nitro had done the exact same thing the week prior. That guy had zero credibility, and deserves the horrible reputation he has as one of the worst announcers of all time.

 

I might rant more on my favorites later. Or I might not.

[pantherwagner]

I only know half a dozen Spanish words, but Alfonso Morales and Arturo Rivera always seem excited to me. I usually listen to music while watching wrestling. The only commentator I make a point of listening to is Walton.

 

You'd love to understand Pedro Septien. He's the Mexican Walton.

 

[sek69]

I'll defend Tony, he was stellar in the JCP/early WCW days. It was when he was paired with Heenan when he noticeably stopped giving a shit.

[pantherwagner]

Until the late 90s I didn't actually watch a lot of wrestling in English and it never stopped my enjoyment.

 

I watched AAA/CMLL in Spanish, which I obviously understood. AAA was terrible all through the 90s. Nowadays it is much better.

I watched WCW/WWF in German (except for video tapes I would buy or trade) as I'd get the shows via satellite from either RTL2 or DSF.

Of course all Japanese wrestling I watched was in Japanese, except for the short run of NJPW Ring Warriors on Eurosport in the mid 90s. I loved Gordon Solie / Craig DeGeorge on commentary. Humperdink/DeGeorge was atrocious.

 

I concur with previous comments on this thread that Hugo Savinovich is outstanding ... but some of the people he had to work with in WWC were atrocious.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'll defend Tony, he was stellar in the JCP/early WCW days. It was when he was paired with Heenan when he noticeably stopped giving a shit.

 

I think he's still actively good until at least 96 if not later.

 

His very very best work is actually as a colour analyst alongside JR in 90-91.

[Eduardo]

Re: The Thread Killer/MMA

 

Joe Rogan's performance at UFC 177, specifically Dillashaw-Soto, was all time levels bad. Lecturing the fans afterwards was pretty embarrassing and made MMA commentators look more dishonest than pro wrestling commentators.

[The Thread Killer]

I'll defend Tony, he was stellar in the JCP/early WCW days. It was when he was paired with Heenan when he noticeably stopped giving a shit.

 

That's what made it worse for me. He didn't have to suck, it's like he chose to be that bad. I bitched about Ed Whalen and Mike Goldberg. I don't think either of them had/have the basic skills to be any better. They sucked due to a total lack of skill and ability.

 

That's why I specified Schiavone during WCW's drawing peak, not in general. I can remember Schiavone back when he was in the WWF. He wasn't all that bad. I understand he could actually be good when he was with JCP. So I don't know how he transformed into the nightmare he became later. Did he make the decision to be annoying and say stupid shit?

 

Sure he and Heenan hated each other, but so did JR and Heyman...they still did a damn good job. If anything, the tension helped the commentary, it didn't hurt it.

 

Re: The Thread Killer/MMA

 

Joe Rogan's performance at UFC 177, specifically Dillashaw-Soto, was all time levels bad. Lecturing the fans afterwards was pretty embarrassing and made MMA commentators look more dishonest than pro wrestling commentators.

 

I didn't see this show, can you expand? I'm always interested to hear from people who had the same complaints I did about UFC commentary.

[Eduardo]

TJ Dillashaw had to fight Joe Soto on late notice after Renan Barao couldn't make weight and had to go to the hospital. Ultimately it was a shitty situation, and UFC was forced to have Dillashaw vs Soto (who was originally in the prelims) as their main event. It's easy to understand that it was a difficult situation, but still be honest about this being a pretty shitty fight to headline a PPV that costs 50 plus bucks.

 

Pre-show has a really odd Rogan interview with Barao, that folks were mixed on. Actual fight itself has Soto being competitive in the later part of round one, and early part of round two, leading Rogan to oversell that brief success big time. Finally Dillashaw puts Soto away in round 5. It was as a whole, a pretty one sided, at best decent fight. Rogan afterwards starts lecturing fans who criticized the fight, saying how it was a great fight, and one or two other random Dana White talking points about fans who question match-ups.

[goc]

And there IS something to be said about watching wrestling this way. Just the crowd and nothing else.

 

I do love great commentary and would probably be more towards the camp that wants it most of the time. But in recent years I've also become a mark for watching 70s film clips.

 

The only thing I don't like is when it is completely silent. That's very hard to follow.

For matches with no commentary, it definitely helps for the crowd to be loud and into it. For the 70s and 80s though this usually isn't a problem with what they bothered to film anyway.

 

I DO have a really big problem trying to watch wrestling with no sound at all or with over terribly overdubbed commentary that drowns out the crowd noise. Wrestling without the crowd noise or the sound of the action is just not the same thing.

[soup23]

Thread killer: why give Hennan a pass while downgrading Tony. I'm entering 1999 and only in 1998 did I feel Ross gained momentum over Tony. Even still, I think Tony gets way too much shit for being a shill. Your argument against Whalen spoke about him going into business for himself, how did Ross not do the same at times by being in on it with the fans at home. Tony was a shill and toed the company line which got progressively worse as the company floundered and he became more burnt out, but I do respect at points his loyalty to the company and preserving his job.

[The Thread Killer]

Thread killer: why give Hennan a pass while downgrading Tony.

 

I don't think Heenan was any great shakes in WCW, either. Heenan is another one who had a limited amount of tired jokes and would go to them time after time. The difference is, I always got the feeling that in the WWF he cared about what he was doing and he sounded engaged. I think he was at his best when he was in the WWF with Gorilla Monsoon, but honestly I have never really liked Heenan as anything other than a manager at ringside. (I think he excelled in that role, mind you.) I hated when the nWo angle started and even Heenan (who was a heel announcer of course) started defending WCW and bitching about the nWo. It sold the invasion aspect of the angle but it made commentary pretty much unbearable with Schiavone and Heenan whinging about how unfair the nWo was etc. etc. etc.

 

As time went by, you could tell Schiavone and Heenan both didn't give a shit, and you could also tell they didn't like each other. I could never understand Schiavone phoning it in like that, especially since he was doing it when WCW was the #1 promotion at the time, and drawing record ratings.

 

You know who is similar? Jerry Lawler. Here's a guy who is one of the most clever and witty heel play-by-play guys out there, hands down. His insults and put-downs of the babyfaces were hysterical, (yet critical and cutting) during the Manhattan Center years of RAW. Yet during the Attitude Era, he pretty much pulls a Schiavone, stops trying, and resorts to shrieking "Puppies Puppies Puppies." That's why Heyman was such a breath of fresh air when he came in and worked with Ross. Heyman could talk about something other than tits.

 

Your argument against Whalen spoke about him going into business for himself, how did Ross not do the same at times by being in on it with the fans at home.

 

There is absolutely positively no way whatsoever you can compare Ed Whalen and Jim Ross. In fact, they are pretty much polar opposites. The bottom line is, like him or not, Jim Ross loves Professional Wrestling, and calling Pro Wrestling matches was his passion and his life's work. Ed Whalen was a sports reporter, columnist and hockey broadcaster who called wrestling matches for money. Whalen had no respect for Pro Wrestling and it showed in his work...hell he pretty much said as much in interviews.

 

Tony was a shill and toed the company line which got progressively worse as the company floundered and he became more burnt out, but I do respect at points his loyalty to the company and preserving his job.

 

There's being a shill and then there is being an assking jerk. Look at his famous "butts in seats" comment he made about Foley, at the apparent order of Bischoff. Foley called him on it - literally, and Schiavone apologized and said he ordered to do it, but I'm sorry. He could have said no, and not taken the shot at Foley, but he did it. He embraced his shill role with gusto. I don't respect him "preserving his job." We have no way of knowing this for sure, but do you think he would have been fired if he'd refused to take the shot at Foley?

 

Maybe the Foley call wasn't worth it to Schiavone. Maybe he thought about it and figured it wasn't a hill worth dying on...why risk your job for refusing to insult a guy who doesn't even work there anymore? But that's the thing, it obviously DID bother him if he went to all the trouble to call Foley and apologize, and even worse it's a symptom of a larger issue. Tony Schiavone would say and do whatever he was told when he was the #1 play-by-play guy in WCW. Look back at some of the ridiculous and incredibly outlandish things he said over those years. He became a joke.

 

In my opinion, the difference between Schiavone and Ross is this...with Schiavone it was always him pimping the company, and the show. WCW is great. THIS IS THE GREATEST NIGHT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR SPORT! Nitro is where the big boys play, blah blah blah. When Ross went overboard, which he frequently did...it was about the product or a particular wrestler (STONE COLD STONE COLD STONE COLD BAH GAWD) it wasn't just indiscriminent company shilling.

 

If you listen to Tony Schiavone during the nWo era, and then Jim Ross during the Attitude Era and you honestly think Schiavone was better than Ross, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Johnny Sorrow]

If you listen to Tony on JR's podcast, a lot of that vitriol should go away.

[BigBadMick]

Thread killer: why give Hennan a pass while downgrading Tony. I'm entering 1999 and only in 1998 did I feel Ross gained momentum over Tony. Even still, I think Tony gets way too much shit for being a shill. Your argument against Whalen spoke about him going into business for himself, how did Ross not do the same at times by being in on it with the fans at home. Tony was a shill and toed the company line which got progressively worse as the company floundered and he became more burnt out, but I do respect at points his loyalty to the company and preserving his job.

I watched loads of 1996-97 WWF before Christmas and it's striking how much Ross is the second fiddle on commentary behind McMahon. He really didn't emerge as a character until 1998.

[goc]

I watched loads of 1996-97 WWF before Christmas and it's striking how much Ross is the second fiddle on commentary behind McMahon. He really didn't emerge as a character until 1998.

 

I am pretty sure J.R. only took over as the lead because Vince couldn't really do commentary anymore after the Montreal incident and especially once he fulled embraced being Mr. McMahon. I'm not sure if Vince ever really envisioned anyone but himself as the lead announcer for his programming.

[BigBadMick]

Yeah, I understand that Goc. Still, I thought JR had stood out more in 97. My mind was playing tricks on me.

[Sidebottom]

If you listen to Tony Schiavone during the nWo era, and then Jim Ross during the Attitude Era and you honestly think Schiavone was better than Ross, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

It's a subjective issue; he can think / feel whatever he wants and that's that.

[ohtani's jacket]

Until the late 90s I didn't actually watch a lot of wrestling in English and it never stopped my enjoyment.

 

I watched AAA/CMLL in Spanish, which I obviously understood. AAA was terrible all through the 90s. Nowadays it is much better.

I watched WCW/WWF in German (except for video tapes I would buy or trade) as I'd get the shows via satellite from either RTL2 or DSF.

Of course all Japanese wrestling I watched was in Japanese, except for the short run of NJPW Ring Warriors on Eurosport in the mid 90s. I loved Gordon Solie / Craig DeGeorge on commentary. Humperdink/DeGeorge was atrocious.

 

I concur with previous comments on this thread that Hugo Savinovich is outstanding ... but some of the people he had to work with in WWC were atrocious.

 

Do you agree that lucha commentary is poor?

[khawk20]

 

 

Somebody mentioned Ed Whalen? Don't get me started on Ed Whalen.

 

That was me, sorry dude. I agreed with everything you said about him in your rant.

 

Also Heath McCoy's Stampede book is something people should read if they haven't already. Good stuff.

[khawk20]

 

 

I DO have a really big problem trying to watch wrestling with no sound at all or with over terribly overdubbed commentary that drowns out the crowd noise. Wrestling without the crowd noise or the sound of the action is just not the same thing.

 

 

I hate this as well and the first one I think of is a version of Hogan-Bockwinkel from April 1982 in St. Paul that they released on one of the AWA Kids Classics vhs tapes back in the day. In that version, Lee Marshall does the overdubbed commentary and it just doesn't fit at all. The commentary is terrible, the crowd noise is muted, and the result doesn't seem as significant as it actually was at the time (This was the first Hogan-Bock meeting a year before Super Sunday).

[Steenalized]

I get JvK's point that commentary is a major part of the aesthetic of wrestling. In my personal experience though, good and great commentary clearly raises a match, bad commentary is something I can typically tune out. Live wrestling as an experience in itself features no commentary. I can't say commentary is a necessity then for wrestling and I'm not even sure if it's important. More that it's beneficial, really beneficial if done right, but I can get by without it.

[soup23]

 

Thread killer: why give Hennan a pass while downgrading Tony.

 

I don't think Heenan was any great shakes in WCW, either. Heenan is another one who had a limited amount of tired jokes and would go to them time after time. The difference is, I always got the feeling that in the WWF he cared about what he was doing and he sounded engaged. I think he was at his best when he was in the WWF with Gorilla Monsoon, but honestly I have never really liked Heenan as anything other than a manager at ringside. (I think he excelled in that role, mind you.) I hated when the nWo angle started and even Heenan (who was a heel announcer of course) started defending WCW and bitching about the nWo. It sold the invasion aspect of the angle but it made commentary pretty much unbearable with Schiavone and Heenan whinging about how unfair the nWo was etc. etc. etc.

 

As time went by, you could tell Schiavone and Heenan both didn't give a shit, and you could also tell they didn't like each other. I could never understand Schiavone phoning it in like that, especially since he was doing it when WCW was the #1 promotion at the time, and drawing record ratings.

 

You know who is similar? Jerry Lawler. Here's a guy who is one of the most clever and witty heel play-by-play guys out there, hands down. His insults and put-downs of the babyfaces were hysterical, (yet critical and cutting) during the Manhattan Center years of RAW. Yet during the Attitude Era, he pretty much pulls a Schiavone, stops trying, and resorts to shrieking "Puppies Puppies Puppies." That's why Heyman was such a breath of fresh air when he came in and worked with Ross. Heyman could talk about something other than tits.

 

Your argument against Whalen spoke about him going into business for himself, how did Ross not do the same at times by being in on it with the fans at home.

 

There is absolutely positively no way whatsoever you can compare Ed Whalen and Jim Ross. In fact, they are pretty much polar opposites. The bottom line is, like him or not, Jim Ross loves Professional Wrestling, and calling Pro Wrestling matches was his passion and his life's work. Ed Whalen was a sports reporter, columnist and hockey broadcaster who called wrestling matches for money. Whalen had no respect for Pro Wrestling and it showed in his work...hell he pretty much said as much in interviews.

 

Tony was a shill and toed the company line which got progressively worse as the company floundered and he became more burnt out, but I do respect at points his loyalty to the company and preserving his job.

 

There's being a shill and then there is being an assking jerk. Look at his famous "butts in seats" comment he made about Foley, at the apparent order of Bischoff. Foley called him on it - literally, and Schiavone apologized and said he ordered to do it, but I'm sorry. He could have said no, and not taken the shot at Foley, but he did it. He embraced his shill role with gusto. I don't respect him "preserving his job." We have no way of knowing this for sure, but do you think he would have been fired if he'd refused to take the shot at Foley?

 

Maybe the Foley call wasn't worth it to Schiavone. Maybe he thought about it and figured it wasn't a hill worth dying on...why risk your job for refusing to insult a guy who doesn't even work there anymore? But that's the thing, it obviously DID bother him if he went to all the trouble to call Foley and apologize, and even worse it's a symptom of a larger issue. Tony Schiavone would say and do whatever he was told when he was the #1 play-by-play guy in WCW. Look back at some of the ridiculous and incredibly outlandish things he said over those years. He became a joke.

 

In my opinion, the difference between Schiavone and Ross is this...with Schiavone it was always him pimping the company, and the show. WCW is great. THIS IS THE GREATEST NIGHT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR SPORT! Nitro is where the big boys play, blah blah blah. When Ross went overboard, which he frequently did...it was about the product or a particular wrestler (STONE COLD STONE COLD STONE COLD BAH GAWD) it wasn't just indiscriminent company shilling.

 

If you listen to Tony Schiavone during the nWo era, and then Jim Ross during the Attitude Era and you honestly think Schiavone was better than Ross, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

If Foley didn't write a book that virtually everyone here has read and has pertinent knowledge of, that "butts in seats" comment wouldn't be remembered very much at all. Was it low class and Tony should have pushed back, sure, but only revision in history and the notoriety that comment garnered by Foley feeling wrong by Tony (which is a separate issue altogether as I feel Foley was insanely tough on Tony's commentary in that book) drove it into the forefront.

 

All I can say is that again, I am into 1999 of my watching and seen highlights of both. I rewatched the entire 1997 and 1998 Nitros around five years ago and thought Tony was great in 1997 and serviceable in 1998. The highlights of 1998 on the yearbook showed Tony could still be mostly good as he talked about things he was passionate about (Jericho, Flair, etc). Jim Ross can been seen as a positive for calling Oddities stuff bowling shoe ugly or saying Good Lord at something Russo created, but I give more credit to Tony for trying to make sense of that situation and portray the storyline that creative is wanted to get across, no wonder how warped that perception is.

[El-P]

On average, I take Schiavone 96/97 over JR Attitude Era years any day.

[GSR]

Re: The Thread Killer/MMA

 

Joe Rogan's performance at UFC 177, specifically Dillashaw-Soto, was all time levels bad. Lecturing the fans afterwards was pretty embarrassing and made MMA commentators look more dishonest than pro wrestling commentators.

Goldberg and Rogan have been terrible for years, going through the motions, and progressively getting worse with each passing show. I feel Sean Wheelock and Jimmy Smith from Bellator are a far better commentary duo. Going back a while I was a big fan of Todd Harris and Frank Mir in WEC. I know Mir had his favorites (Miguel Angel Torres for one) but thought they really complimented each other well and it was a shame Harris never really got a shot in the UFC.