Jump to content

What should wrestling give up for Lent?


HarmonicGenerator

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Paid Members

I hear you on that one. I used to love the corner post spot though, whenever it led to the finish. It along with a slingshot inside the ring that would result in hitting the top of the ring post. Useful props when protected. Now however, when you've seen them three times in every match, 18 times a night and about 100 times a week, it's fucking pointless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I've been thinking about this topic since it was first posted, and the biggest thing I can think of is more exclusive to the WWE. Basically, I think they should chalk fuck on the idea that wins and losses don't matter. 

Also, I'd bring back the little Gorilla Monsoon-esque comments about winning getting you a bigger share of the "purse". Little details like that can make even the throwaway matches mean a little bit more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

A lot of the wrestling I've watched in the last few weeks has been the Colliseum videos that got uploaded or WCW PPVs from 1993. The commentary completely blows away anything that comes along now. I can watch and enjoy NXT Takeover, WWE PPVs and 205 live recently but unless a commentator says something ludicrously stupid, I can't think of a thing of any interest they've said or a way they've enhanced any match in anyway. They should be forced to sit and listen to this stuff day in and day out until they learn something.

The most obvious thing is that the voices are distinctive and at least one of the commentators normally has a personality. Schiavone's fairly clean-cut but ventura is larger than life. Monsoon is a massive presence without been seen. Even Alfred Hayes, who's fairly awful, is distinctive. Corey Graves has about 1% of Ventura's talent and personality and yet is easily the best commentator around now.

The work a team like Monsoon and Hayes will put in to trying to make something as shit as IRS vs. Jim Duggan interesting is remarkable. They'll talk about the morality of each guy. They'll debate why the heel is a dispicable prick and what there is to like about the baby. They'll talk about the backstory to the match. They'll request replays or angles from the directors. They'll compliment or criticise referees. They'll critique the choice of move or the application of holds. All without sounding like they're being fed lines because they aren't. It's all utter nonsense too. There is no director. There is no rule book. There is no purse or fines. There is no pecking order or title opportunity. But they enhance even the worst matches.

Schiavone and Ventura are way better still. I couldn't be convinced that there has ever been a better commentary team than these two. Monsoon and Heenan are my favourite, I think, but even they aren't better than these two. They have a great way of translating the story to you as if they're reading the match like all great commentary teams as opposed to someone like Michael Cole who sounds like he's reading it from a book.

The subleties are lost these days too. Probably because commentators haven't worked at the top level or learnt from the best like years gone by. Ventura would point out that you don't expect a clean break from such and such and you know from that little detail that he's a knob. It's so simple but effective. And said in a way that conveys the villainous respect he has. These days if it was even picked up on it'd be screamed about "WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT, MAGGLE? BLAH-BLAH-BLAH OXFORD BEAT SUNDERLAND 2-1"

It's such a lost art. And the crying shame is that in WWE, where it's been lost most obviously, it's been lost by a guy who was very, very good at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
2 hours ago, Uncle Zeb said:

"You'd have to think a win here would really put Breezango in the conversation for a possible opportunity at title contention down the line."

The whole idea of "the conversation" being eroded and eventually forgotten over time has done untold damage to the importance of wins and losses over the years, their ability to tell stories has gone out the window and there is now a huge reliance on lazy mechanisms as discussed re: MITB the other day. The briefcase, the top contenders match, the automatic rematch clause. I'm not saying a full blown return to the faceless "championship committee" of yesteryear is the way forward nor any tedious super cereal sports type rankings a la ROH circa 2009 but there's a lot to be said for an alternative to having to rubber stamp a match as a "top contenders" match before it means anything.

My first exposure to a full wrestling ppv taught me wins and losses mattered beyond the actual title defences by the second match on the card. It was Mania VI and as the Demos were going after Andre & Haku for the belts, Gorilla informed me "We've got a team like the Harts, who have already challenged the winners here!" This made it clear to me that the Harts were full of confidence and must have put a few wins together, they hadn't even waited to see who won before issuing a challenge, and this was underlined later when Bret and Who crushed the Bolsheviks in 40 seconds. However later during the Rockers/Orients match Jesse points out that just because they've challenged, doesn't mean they automatically receive a title shot, and Monsoon replies with a mention of the championship committee. In the context of a fake combat sport without league tables or explicit rankings, this committee (and as I discovered, ultimately the whims of President Tunney), this made perfect sense to me.

Fast forward a few years. Aside from the establishment of the Rumble as the vehicle to award Mania's title shot (fine) and Shawn's decision to defend said same shot against Owen at In Your House (fine) the earliest example I can remember of the explicit "top contenders" match was Bret Hart vs Steve Austin at Survivors 96. As an aside to the personal animosity this was mentioned in passing on comms - the match didn't need the extra, but it made perfect sense as the match was gigantic. The returning "living legend" against his chief antagonist with months of build.... yes, I understand why this was an eliminator for a title fight. If Bret's comeback were booked today, he'd merely have to mention that "I never got my rematch" to be granted a title shot but even the last WWF Champion needed to earn a title shot, and conversely Austin definitely would have a right to a title shot by simple virtue of beating Bret Hart. No issues with "top contenders" match here and it was still the exception, not the rule. Hell, after Shawn vacated and the Final Four debacle rendered Austin's Rumble win effectively null and void, Taker wasn't even forced to win his title match in the ring for MANIA. 

So did it go on, where title shots were simply announced on TV seemingly at the wisdom of the committee in reward for the relevance of performances and win/loss records of the wrestlers. I still remember the pop for when Austin was named as the next contender on Raw ahead of Cold Day In Hell, and thinking "Yeah, Austin's made it" better than dozens of top contenders in the intervening years. It's simple isnt it? Winning matches, being "in form" - it mattered because if you were regularly "going to the pay window" then you could be rewarded with that all important title match. There was the occasional exception - the first Hell In A Cell for instance which again made sense for the magnitude,  but again, this wasn't the norm.

1998-9 is where it went tits up. Starting with Undertaker (disguised as Kane, remember that one?) going over Mankind to win his SummerSlam 98 title shot, contenders matches on Raw started creeping in. Similarly, title rematches on TV started becoming available at short notice, as well as the lazy practice of title shots being given out by the champion just because the challenger came out on the ramp and asked for one. Probably a continuation of the obsession with ratings and the need to put on compelling TV,  it was a very gradual process but over the years the "top contenders" phenomenon grew to the point you could rarely go two ppvs or so without a show having a match to determine next months challenger, it felt. By 2002 even King of the Ring became a "win and get your title shot at SummerSlam" deal, albeit only for one year before it was scrubbed.

Fast forward to today - between the Rumble, Elimination Chamber and constant "top contenders" matches, they're so obsessed with artificially underlining the "big" matches that other wins and loses really don't mean fuck all. But worse, it's bred the kind of lazy writing to the point where they can announce a multiman contenders match with a fucking nobody like a Jinder Mahal in for no apparent reason, have him WIN, and think that makes sense for a promotion. No fucking way does a look at THAT win/loss record justify him getting anywhere near a title shot in the days of the fictional committee. Lazy bastards. Oh, he won a top contenders match, it's fine that there's been no journey, no advance in my perception of Jinders ability to win matches regularly to the point I believe he deserves a shot, much less be champion.

I'm not entirely sure what my summary is except that win/loss records should matter ergo ALL wins and losses should matter, it was better in the good old days, Jinder as champion made me sick because he's a loser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Could not agree with @tiger_rick more.

I have three favourite all-time commentators in wrestling: Kent Walton, Lance Russell and Jesse Ventura.

Walton was brilliant at never talking down to the audience, and never acting like he was above the product - he'd call out heels on their shit, but never outright bury them; he'd talk about them the same way a boxing commentator might talk about a dirty fighter. He'd never assume knowledge, and would explain everything you were watching, talk through at least a few key character traits of each wrestler, and it never felt forced. He lent legitimacy, without having to overdo everything by talking about how important or significant it was.

Lance Russell I once compared to Terry Wogan - his skill wasn't necessarily as a "commentator" in the truest sense, but in just an overall sense of warmth and familiarity. You knew exactly what you were getting, and his skill was in making you feel welcome, and feeling like he could be talking just to you. He was a great audience surrogate - whereas someone like Walton is there to explain what's happening to the audience, Russell is there to experience the show right alongside you; when Lance is upset, you should be upset, when Lance dislikes someone, the audience dislikes them. That's something WWE have never quite managed, though Gorilla Monsoon came very close.

Jesse Ventura I just think is the pinnacle of heel colour commentary; I love his work with Jim Ross in WCW, but him and Monsoon is probably my favourite announce team. Bobby Heenan was a genius, but could potentially undermine matches by being more focused on cracking jokes, and on the kind of bickering with Monsoon that created the template that the WWE have been trying to recapture ever since - the problem being that the likes of JBL don't have the comic timing and sense of purpose that Heenan had to know when to dial it back and get serious, and the likes of Michael Cole don't have the respect or gravitas of Gorilla Monsoon to pull off a "will you stop?" to shut it down. Ventura, though, offered insight - while Heenan would often just applaud the heels for cheating for cheating's sake, Ventura would explain the benefit of what they were doing, and how it actually helped them win the match. His character always felt consistent, not just cheering on the baddies because that was his job.

 

That's the thing I miss most - explaining things, justifying them. "The winner's purse" is a great one, because it justifies why someone wants to win a match that, on paper, isn't for anything. A bit of commentary I used to particularly love was when somebody would say, "So-and-so is a great wrestler, he has all the tools, so why does he feel the need to cheat?", or words to that effect - to me, that really gets a heel over, because it's explaining that they're taking shortcuts just to make their life easier, not because they have to, and that just makes them sound like a prick.

What do we get now? "FUN TO WATCH". Fun to watch is my least favourite thing in wrestling commentary, by a wide margin. At the Royal Rumble, on the pre-show, JBL said that Kane/Brock/Strowman would be "fun to watch". Fuck off, no, it's going to be a car crash, it's going to be devastating, it's going to be barbaric, it's going to be all these things, it's certainly not going to be fun. Does anything make a serious match sound less important than saying it's going to be "fun to watch?". And when he'd say it of somebody like Kalisto - don't tell me that Kalisto's style is "fun to watch", tell me how it's going to help him win matches. And that's what they don't do any more - they don't talk about how anything the wrestlers are doing is designed to help them win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
31 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

That's the thing I miss most - explaining things, justifying them. "The winner's purse" is a great one, because it justifies why someone wants to win a match that, on paper, isn't for anything. A bit of commentary I used to particularly love was when somebody would say, "So-and-so is a great wrestler, he has all the tools, so why does he feel the need to cheat?", or words to that effect - to me, that really gets a heel over, because it's explaining that they're taking shortcuts just to make their life easier, not because they have to, and that just makes them sound like a prick.

What do we get now? "FUN TO WATCH". Fun to watch is my least favourite thing in wrestling commentary, by a wide margin. At the Royal Rumble, on the pre-show, JBL said that Kane/Brock/Strowman would be "fun to watch". Fuck off, no, it's going to be a car crash, it's going to be devastating, it's going to be barbaric, it's going to be all these things, it's certainly not going to be fun. Does anything make a serious match sound less important than saying it's going to be "fun to watch?". And when he'd say it of somebody like Kalisto - don't tell me that Kalisto's style is "fun to watch", tell me how it's going to help him win matches. And that's what they don't do any more - they don't talk about how anything the wrestlers are doing is designed to help them win.

I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is in wrestling these days that the promotions will tell you that this is entertainment, and keep reminding you just in case you manage to suspend your disbelief for a few minutes.

I can't see any reason for it at all. 

Sonjay Dutt has had mixed reviews for his commentary on Impact during recent weeks. But one thing I did enjoy was that Josh Matthews would throw to him every now and then, and ask him to explain why this move hurts and how to counter it. That's still a far cry from the type of commentary I enjoy (which as you said, was from the 80s and 90s), but it was a little throwback at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
On 21/02/2018 at 7:03 PM, tiger_rick said:

A lot of the wrestling I've watched in the last few weeks has been the Colliseum videos that got uploaded or WCW PPVs from 1993. The commentary completely blows away anything that comes along now. I can watch and enjoy NXT Takeover, WWE PPVs and 205 live recently but unless a commentator says something ludicrously stupid, I can't think of a thing of any interest they've said or a way they've enhanced any match in anyway. They should be forced to sit and listen to this stuff day in and day out until they learn something.

The most obvious thing is that the voices are distinctive and at least one of the commentators normally has a personality. Schiavone's fairly clean-cut but ventura is larger than life. Monsoon is a massive presence without been seen. Even Alfred Hayes, who's fairly awful, is distinctive. Corey Graves has about 1% of Ventura's talent and personality and yet is easily the best commentator around now.

The work a team like Monsoon and Hayes will put in to trying to make something as shit as IRS vs. Jim Duggan interesting is remarkable. They'll talk about the morality of each guy. They'll debate why the heel is a dispicable prick and what there is to like about the baby. They'll talk about the backstory to the match. They'll request replays or angles from the directors. They'll compliment or criticise referees. They'll critique the choice of move or the application of holds. All without sounding like they're being fed lines because they aren't. It's all utter nonsense too. There is no director. There is no rule book. There is no purse or fines. There is no pecking order or title opportunity. But they enhance even the worst matches.

Schiavone and Ventura are way better still. I couldn't be convinced that there has ever been a better commentary team than these two. Monsoon and Heenan are my favourite, I think, but even they aren't better than these two. They have a great way of translating the story to you as if they're reading the match like all great commentary teams as opposed to someone like Michael Cole who sounds like he's reading it from a book.

The subleties are lost these days too. Probably because commentators haven't worked at the top level or learnt from the best like years gone by. Ventura would point out that you don't expect a clean break from such and such and you know from that little detail that he's a knob. It's so simple but effective. And said in a way that conveys the villainous respect he has. These days if it was even picked up on it'd be screamed about "WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT, MAGGLE? BLAH-BLAH-BLAH OXFORD BEAT SUNDERLAND 2-1"

It's such a lost art. And the crying shame is that in WWE, where it's been lost most obviously, it's been lost by a guy who was very, very good at it.

I was raised on Tony & Jesse calling WCW Worldwide during my formative years. Ventura is a brilliant color guy whoever he's alongside on play-by-play and Schiavone always managed to come across as a legitimate sports commentator, or at least he did until late 90s WCW destroyed him. Heenan was one of a kind as he could have you in hysterics with his wisecracks, but was never afraid to put the babyface over in spite of his obvious heel demeanour. They made the matches seem like such a big deal. Watching Monsoon calling that archive stuff solo on the grudge matches thing on the Network was very interesting as well. They made everything feel massive and more like a real sport, which really helped with the suspension of disbelief..

Mauro Renallo had that about him when he was calling the New Japan stuff on AXS, which I'm not sure can be found online anywhere, but once he ended up on Smackdown alongside JBL, Otunga and Wilson Phillips he was just another of those guys. I thought Cole and Tazz calling Smackdown around 2005-6 were hilarious because they didn't seem like they gave a damn what they said and reminded my mates and I of things we'd say on commentary when we were backyarding around, but even through all the shenanigans Tazz would try and explain why they were using the holds/moves they were using in an attempt to add some legitimacy to proceedings.

We know it's not a real sport, but calling the proceedings as though it was would really help a lot, especially if trying to show somebody else why you like the wrestling. Kevin Kelly & Don Callis do a good job of it on New JApan, although Callis can be a bit insidery at times. He's better than Corino was, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
13 minutes ago, jazzygeofferz said:

Heenan was one of a kind as he could have you in hysterics with his wisecracks, but was never afraid to put the babyface over in spite of his obvious heel demeanour.

People never really talk about this when they're talking about how funny he was and how great he was calling the Rumble 92, but it's true. He didn't act as though he liked Bret, for instance, but he made a point to grudgingly agree when Gorilla would point out what a great wrestler he was. Later on when Bret was champion for the first time I'll always remember the job he did underlining what a schedule of defences the Hitman had gone through, that he was burning the candle at both ends, and always predicted the defence he was watching was going to be Hart's last because he was knackered. This made Bret look even tougher every time he pulled it out ; the Brain was key in convincing me that Bret was a complete iron man during his first title run, that's how good Heenan was.

Shame that first run ended with Bret jobbing to salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
1 minute ago, air_raid said:

People never really talk about this when they're talking about how funny he was and how great he was calling the Rumble 92, but it's true. He didn't act as though he liked Bret, for instance, but he made a point to grudgingly agree when Gorilla would point out what a great wrestler he was. Later on when Bret was champion for the first time I'll always remember the job he did underlining what a schedule of defences the Hitman had gone through, that he was burning the candle at both ends, and always predicted the defence he was watching was going to be Hart's last because he was knackered. This made Bret look even tougher every time he pulled it out ; the Brain was key in convincing me that Bret was a complete iron man during his first title run, that's how good Heenan was.

Shame that first run ended with Bret jobbing to salt.

Every time Bret kissed the belt Heenan would say he's kissing it goodbye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...