How important is commentary?

[Ryan Faulconer]

Commentary with the right emotion behind it lifts the match to a higher level for sure. Watching lucha and the Japanese promotions for years trained my ears to believe in the emotion in the announcer's voice rather than the words. I can't speak Spanish or Japanese but I really enjoy heated commentary - English/Spanish/Japanese/Inuit throat singing makes everything better. Commentary that compliments the action in the ring has become almost white noise for me...white noise that can help sell the action. Crowds already do that for probably everyone who watches wrestling. Commentary has just blended in to compliment not just what I see in the ring but also what I hear.

 

Having said all that...WWE makes me want to jam scissors in my ears Throw-Mamma-From-The-Train style. When I watch Lucha Underground Vampiro can cause similar bouts with overreacting to compensate.

 

Sometimes it can be a little bit of a struggle to watch wrestling without any commentary. Handheld footage can be frustrating if the crowd is dead...or non-existent as per the Hero/Punk 60 Minute match from 2002 IWA-MS. Other times the ambience of a good crowd can trick me into forgetting that there is nobody calling the match. There are a lot of Japanese commercial releases over the years that didn't have commentary and I didn't mind it at all. The first MPro tape I bought back in 2000 was a good ten or more minutes into the match before I realized that there was nobody commentating.

 

I'm very legally blind so my viewing perspective might not synch up with the viewing and/or listening preferences of others.

[KrisZ]

I think the high point of Tony/Jesse was Fall Brawl 93 where they were having fun and the producer cut Jesse's mic on purpose to razz him.

[C.S.]

Remember when WWE was trying to replace Jim Ross with Mike Goldberg? (Or so the rumor mill spun...)

 

Tony Schiavione was excellent once upon a time, but he became unbearable during the dying days of WCW.

 

Bobby Heenan obviously never gave a shit in WCW, but he said in his books that he felt undervalued and unappreciated. He pitched ideas, only to be told he was "just a commentator" and should stick to that - basically know his place.

 

I'll catch shit for this, but I always thought bad matches on Wrestling Challenge and Prime Time were enhanced by Gorilla Monsoon's commentary or the bantering of Sean Mooney and Lord Alfred Hayes. The latter pair was not exactly good, per se, but they were memorable. One time, they randomly argued about the pronunciation of Kato.

[soup23]

 

Bobby Heenan obviously never gave a shit in WCW, but he said in his books that he felt undervalued and unappreciated. He pitched ideas, only to be told he was "just a commentator" and should stick to that - basically know his place.

I was glad to hear on the latest History of Wrestling Podcast, Scott Hudson say at the time, Hennan made three times more than him and he was doing triple the commentary before the Nitro days.

[Sidebottom]

Remember when WWE was trying to replace Jim Ross with Mike Goldberg? (Or so the rumor mill spun...)

 

Yeah around 2005 time if I recall. Only sparingly watching UFC at the best of times, I didn't know who he was. I just remember seeing the headlines "WWE want Goldberg" and getting excited for a Bill return.

[C.S.]

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.

 

I can't agree with the notion that commentary isn't necessary or important because you don't hear it at live events. Live events and televised shows are completely different experiences. The feeling of being there can't be replicated by watching it on TV, and certain things about watching it on TV can't be replicated at the arena.

[The Thread Killer]

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

 

I actually heard JR's interview with Schiavone when it happened. Schiavone admitted he stopped caring about doing a good job once they were well into the Bischoff era in WCW, that he once deliberately called a match where he didn't mention the action in the ring, he just pimped the WCW Million Dollar contest to try and prove to Eric that he could follow orders even when he didn't agree with them.

 

He also admitted that he blindly followed company orders and stopped talking to Heenan when they told him to, even though he and Heenan were supposedly friends. (And then after apologizing to Heenan for it, he stopped talking to him again for no reason - but he feels bad about it.)

 

He also essentially admitted that while he was a wrestling fan when he was younger, his real passion was calling baseball. He basically admitted that he was happiest working for the WWF and that when he went back to WCW he thought he made a mistake, and eventually he started phoning it in and got burnt out. He even admitted at the very end he was terrible, trying to be snarky and funny on the air and failed badly.

 

There was nothing in that interview that made me like or respect Tony Schiavone more, it pretty much confirmed everything I thought about him to begin with. He was a company shill he didn't love the product and phoned it in a lot of the time. He admits it himself in that interview!

 

 

 

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.

 

 

He can?! Phew, thank gawd you're here to defend the right of freedom of thought.

 

Show me where I said he can't think or feel something. People are entitled to whatever opinions they damn well want. I said if he thought Schiavone was better than JR, then I don't know what to tell him...meaning I don't know what to say to that.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Yeah, that kind of just exploded off my keyboard bud.

 

I never liked Whalen from the jump, and after I read McCoy's book? Lookout. I couldn't believe that stunt Whalen pulled where he walked out of the arena while they were on the air, during the Bad News Allen/Archie Gouldie angle and basically ruined the entire thing. That was when he bitched to the athletic commission, costing them the ability to hold the blow-off match at the Stampede Corral. He basically ruined all the work everybody had done on that angle, and cost them money in the process. (And that was an excellent angle, WAY ahead of it's time.) My dislike for Whalen was upgraded to total disgust at that point. I know Bad News claimed in shoot interviews he couldn't stand Whalen and wanted to smack him. I kind of wish he had.

 

 

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.

 

I don't understand the logic of your argument. If Foley hadn't mentioned the "Butts in Seats" comment in his book, it would have been okay for Schiavone to have said it, because nobody would remember it?

 

Firstly, even if Foley hadn't mentioned it, I think it would still be remembered. The whole point of Bischoff telling Schiavone to say that was to take a cheap shot at Foley, and to discourage people from changing the channel to RAW. It was a huge mistake on both counts, as people generally liked Foley at that time, and what kind of idiot tells people that the World Title is about to change hands on another channel, and doesn't guess that people are going to want to actually see it?

 

I don't know if it really did have the huge effect on the ratings that some claim it did - I know the story is that as soon as Schiavone said it, thousands of people changed the channel, but I do think it's been confirmed that RAW beat Nitro during that segment. I don't see any revisionist history going on there, to be honest.

 

Nor can I blame Foley for taking shots at Schaivone in his book after what Schiavone said about him. And I don't even like Foley anymore, but on that one, he's right.

 

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

 

You guys have raised one point I did not consider, as it has been almost 20 years and I have not gone back and watched much of that footage again. You are right about the JR/Schiavone timelines. Namely, I had forgotten that until Survivor Series 97, Vince McMahon was still the play-by-play guy for the WWF.

 

So my JR > Schiavone equation may be a time miscalculation. I tend to remember the two broadcast teams during the Monday Night Wars as being Schiavone and Heenan vs. JR and Lawler. However many of you are right...the timelines may not totally match.

 

I agree that Tony Schiavone and Bobby Heenan were a more enjoyable team than McMahon/Ross/Lawler...basically for all of 96 and most of 97. (I have heard jdw say that back in the seventies, Vince McMahon was a good Play-by-Play guy, but from the moment I ever heard him in 83/84 up until 97, I found him to be pretty insufferable as well. Ventura helped offset him somewhat, but still.)

 

However, when McMahon left the booth, and Ross took over as primary Play-by-Play guy, that is when the momentum started to shift. 1998 was WCW's most profitable year financially, but I think it was also when Schiavone went into full on shill-mode and his work started to go into the shitter.

 

Having said that, it wasn't too long before Lawler started to noticably decline in quality too, as I recall. When the "T&A" aspect of the attitude era really started to come to the forefront, to me that is when Lawler started to really go downhill, stopped worrying about being a color guy, and resorted to acting like a creepy old pervert. (Which he is...but still.) Curse the day he (or whoever it was) came up with the "puppies" catch phrase.

 

 

Goldberg and Rogan have been terrible for years, going through the motions, and progressively getting worse with each passing show.

 

Good lord...Goldberg and Rogan are getting WORSE?! I shudder to think how that is possible.

 

I'll catch shit for this, but I always thought bad matches on Wrestling Challenge and Prime Time were enhanced by Gorilla Monsoon's commentary or the bantering ofan Mooney and Lord Alfred Hayes. The latter pair was not exactly good, per se, but they were memorable. One time, they randomly argued about the pronunciation of Kato.

 

Hey, conventional wisdom loves to shit all over Gorilla, but I used to love him and Jesse. You could tell they liked each other and were having fun, and that will get you pretty far in my opinion. Gorilla had his own bag of well worn phrases that he beat into the ground, but I liked him, bless him.

 

[goodhelmet]

Good points by all but I don't need commentary to make a match feel special. I have seen too many awesome handhelds/ 8 mm films / foreign matches that I don't understand to get hung up on commentary. When I was in college, my wife and I worked different hours so I was forced to watch wrestling with the sound down many times late at night. Am I supposed to stop watching wrestling because I am not getting the "full" experience? I am calling bullshit on that one. I do agree it can hurt if you are watching it as a television show but not individual matches.

[WingedEagle]

To keep a long story short -- I can enjoy Japanese wrestling, sometimes in spite of, but more often *because of*, the commentary, on many occasions. Perhaps if I spoke Japanese it might bring down my enjoyment of the product. Same might apply for lucha. Raw/Smackdown? At this point the commentary is an absolutely incredible drag on the product. I wish I could tune it out, but I can't. I also won't mute it as I believe the crowd is an important part of the show. Its not as bad on the PPVs as perhaps the production is more attuned to the show itself rather than any number of sideshows. But, yes, the commentary absolutely drags down most TV matches for me.

[The Thread Killer]

When I was in college, my wife and I worked different hours so I was forced to watch wrestling with the sound down many times late at night. Am I supposed to stop watching wrestling because I am not getting the "full"experience?

 

Yes, you are supposed to stop watching.

 

...

 

Since you're not watching anymore...can I have your tapes and DVD's?

[Eduardo]

When I was in college, my wife and I worked different hours so I was forced to watch wrestling with the sound down many times late at night. Am I supposed to stop watching wrestling because I am not getting the "full" experience? I am calling bullshit on that one. I do agree it can hurt if you are watching it as a television show but not individual matches.

 

Good point.

 

When I was young, I used to mess around with a TV antenna to get grainy, barely watchable silent feed of a TV station in Corpus Christi that aired ECW and old Memphis reruns. As a kid, I just wanted to see wrestling by any means.