Josh and Jack

[Mr. Nerfect]

I really liked the Heat commentary this week. Todd Grisham and Jonathan Coachman were out, so Josh Mathews was sitting in with a new guy. His name was something like Jack Portopello (I'm sure I've got that wrong). They had some interesting chemistry. Not the greatest announce team ever, or anything, but I much preferred these two to Grish and Coach.

The new guy sounds kind of like an independent commentator. He "um"s and "ah"s a lot, but that could be stage fright, and it's human. Doesn't make his commentary awful. He had done his research, had the stats on the wrestlers, and he added to the match (as a colour commentator should). He also threw over to Josh Mathews perfectly at one stage. They were discussing Dan Rodman's power, and Jack just goes "Well, you've been in the ring before, what do you do when you're unable to match a guys power like that?" I really liked it. For a first time effort (at least on WWE TV), that guy showed a lot of potential.

Josh Mathews was his usual awesome self. He took over when the action got rolling, and he's no JBL in the humour department, but he's definitely better than Jerry Lawler.

I'd like to see these guys get Heat, as I think they'd really be able to get their chemistry down, and become a really good commentary duo.

[Xero]

Was watching SmackDown! last night and have to say that Michael Cole is one of the worst announcers WWE has ever had. He's just gotten worse over the years.

That is all.

[AdrianM]

Was watching SmackDown! last night and have to say that Michael Cole is one of the worst announcers WWE has ever had. He's just gotten worse over the years.

That is all.

i like michael cole. i think its no coincidence that taz and JBL have both been awesome when commentating with michael cole (and on ECW, taz is terrible)

[Jeritron]

I kinda admire you Alienoid. You bring yourself to care about shows, wrestlers, and topics that even the most diehard wrestling fans can't. At least you see the good in complete garbage I suppose, though I can't help but feel sorry for you having to sit through Sunday Night Heat and the like. Shit, I feel bad for myself while I'm watching Raw and Impact.

[Xero]

i like michael cole. i think its no coincidence that taz and JBL have both been awesome when commentating with michael cole (and on ECW, taz is terrible)
Cole: The SmackDown! fans are going crazy over this new SmackDown! wrestler, wrestling right here on SmackDown!! This kid, who is wrestling on SmackDown!, can bench press a hippopotamus' head and run five miles in two minutes, and there will be a video coming up right here on SmackDown! highlighting this new SmackDown! Superstar's amazing feats. You could call them "SmackDown! feats".

JBL: Shut the fuck up, seriously.

[Destor]

i like michael cole. i think its no coincidence that taz and JBL have both been awesome when commentating with michael cole (and on ECW, taz is terrible)You're right. It's no coincidence that Taz and JBL both are awesoem when next to cole. Why? Because they spend half the night giving Cole shit, which = funny. SO yeah. Does Cole make them better? Yeah, by sucking so hard his partner stpes it up.

[James Steele]

JBL and Taz making so many jokes about Cole, and he has no comebacks = priceless.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I don't think it's that Michael Cole has no comebacks, it's just his hands are tied by his generic face role. Michael Cole, in real life, is a quick-witted, smart, sometimes arrogant sounding son of a bitch. I think if he was allowed to submit more wit and edge into his commentary, instead of blindly following the good guys, he would be so much better.

One thing I think Cole has handled horribly is The Hardys' participation in MITB at WrestleMania. JBL makes a point about Hardy jumping off a ladder instead of climbing it. JBL is being perfectly logical there, and Cole shouldn't try so hard to contrast him. Sometimes it is just annoying.

On SmackDown!, this is what went down between JBL and Michael Cole (roughly):

JBL: Jeff Hardy could have chosen to won MITB, but instead he jumped off the ladder, and damn near killed himself.

Michael Cole: The fact is, Jeff Hardy did what he had to do to try and win MITB.

Michael Cole is just arguing with JBL to balance things out, or to blindly support Jeff Hardy as if he were a flawless entity of heroism. As a mark watching, I would have agreed with JBL. Even if I loved Jeff Hardy, he did nearly kill himself, and did kill his chances, at winning MITB. Michael Cole arguing that a near suicide attempt is trying to win makes me dislike Michael Cole. If I am impartial to Jeff Hardy, this could have a negative affect on my liking for him, because Cole is on his side and is so damn irritating.

Perhaps something like this would have been better:

JBL: Jeff Hardy could have chosen to won MITB, but instead he jumped off the ladder, and damn near killed himself.

Michael Cole: I have to agree with you, JBL. Jeff Hardy could have gone for the briefcase, but he saw an opportunity to take out one of his opponents. Pushing the limits is also how Jeff Hardy has earned himself so many fans, which gives him the momentum he needs to be successful.

JBL: You don't need fans to be successful, Michael! On the contrary, it was only when I stopped pretending to be a lovable redneck that I became successful! When Jeff Hardy realises that pandering to these idiots is hurting him rather than helping, he could end up having the very same success as I did.

Doesn't that just seem to flow so much better?

Also, Michael Cole's defending of Matt Hardy is just awful. Matt did encourage Jeff to jump off the ladder and take out himself and Edge. Instead of calling JBL "delusional", when he is clearly right, Cole should have said something like this:

"Matt Hardy did encourage Jeff to take out Edge. However, you could tell that Matt was concerned about his brother's health. He just wanted to take him out for a second, so Matt would have the chance he needed to win the match, and didn't have to go through his own brother in a Ladder Match to do it. It was ambitious of Matt Hardy, yes, but JBL, you've always said Matt Hardy needs to stop showboating to the fans and start winning. That's what he was trying to do."

Michael Cole might even trip JBL up by reflecting it back on his usual "Do whatever it takes," heel mentality. Layfield could of course just agree with Cole and say "Matt Hardy is a main event waiting to happen."

[Mr. Nerfect]

Anyway, here are my proposed changes to the WWE's commentary teams:

RAW: Jim Ross and Jerry Lawler
As much as I hate to admit it, these guys are iconic of Monday Night RAW. They won't be around forever, but with their newly earned Hall of Fame status, they could run for another year or two. There is a change I would make, however: Jerry Lawler must turn heel. The whole reason the JR/King commentary team worked in the first place was because of exchanges like this:

Jim Ross: I don't like this, it's not right, and it upsets me to see such a talented kid stooping to such levels...

Jerry Lawler: Whoa! Hold on, JR. I've been in the ring before, and I know what it's like; you do whatever you can to win. This kid has a mind for the business.

Now it's like:

Jim Ross: This is awful...

Jerry Lawler: I agree, this is awful.

It's just anti-climatic commentary. Lawler is just there to second JR, there's no balance, and there's no dynamic.

As a heel, King doesn't need to be completely unlikeable. When he returned after the Invasion, and replaced Paul Heyman, I marked out like a little bitch. In hindsight, I can't remember what I was thinking. Lawler was just savvy, had empathy for the bad guys, understanding why they were cheating, while JR just bitched about it. You got the send that JR and King had respect for each other, though. This was highlighted during the Tazz vs. Lawler feud.

Heat: Josh Mathews and Jack Portopello
What can I say? I liked these two together. Jack actually seems like a likeable colour commentator. He seems like a wrestling nerd that knows the heights, weights, finishing moves, styles and what-not of a certain wrestler. As the play-by-play calls the action, he can just sit outside waiting to chime in with relevent information on the wrestler.

Josh Mathews is also a play-by-play commentator with edge. Having stepped into the ring before, Mathews could be referred to as a colour guy, which he can do as well, but he uses his wrestling past to call the moves by their correct names, and keep up with the breakneck action. With Jack being unknown, it makes it hard to accept his opinion as a colour analyst, which is where Mathews' wrestling background and personality shine through to compensate. It's almost as if both guys dip into both fields a little bit, and are kind of a Venn diagram of commentating:

-Josh primarily calls the action.
-Jack provides information on the wrestler's life and background.
-Josh has wrestling experience.
-Josh provides the "outrageousness" of the team.

Jotting that down, it looks like Josh has more to offer than Jack, but Jack plays the straight guy playing off Mathews. He seems to be the guy who sets the pace of the team, as well. He throws away to Josh's wrestling background when it is needed.

Both Josh and Jack seem quite versatile in their roles in the booth, so I can seem them really helping each other perfect themselves.

SmackDown!: Joey Styles and John Bradshaw Layfield
I want to see this team, dammit! The best play-by-play guy in professional wrestling, and the best colour analyst in the same industry. This could be a problem if they seemed to blend together too easily, but I think Styles and JBL would have a great dynamic. Styles seems like the democratic, open-minded, feels passionately about his sport; JBL seems like the republican, ECW-hating, company loving redneck. I think it would be sheer awesomeness.

Styles can also call more wrestling matches, as SmackDown! has the best wrestling on WWE TV. Plus, he is taped on SmackDown!, so they don't have to worry about him breaking loose. I think these two would just be brilliant together. I don't really have much to add.

ECW: Michael Cole and Tazz
Remember when these two guys hosted Byte This!? That is the commentary duo they should be in ECW. For a little while, these two guys were the gem of professional wrestling commentary, and they could be again. ECW still goes on live, doesn't it? That can be a test for how Cole does in that environment. Tazz can be Tazz, and he doesn't need to feel bad about ripping into Michael Cole like he might Joey Styles. Anything goes with Cole on the receiving end.

Mixed Brand Teams: Jim Ross, Joey Styles and JBL; Jerry Lawler, Michael Cole and Tazz
Hear me out: on shows where they need to have commentators from separate brands call the action, I'm thinking on more minor PPVs, like the upcoming Backlash, teams like these would be handy.

Jim Ross, Joey Styles and JBL would be the A-team. JR is the face redneck, JBL is the heel redneck; Joey Styles is caught in the middle. Their style would feature Styles being the more impartial one, trying to moderate the arguments between JR and JBL. He would be the one most for ECW, whereas JR shows RAW some pride, and JBL shows his loyalty to "The A-Show", SmackDown!. Styles is also pro-SmackDown!, but seems a little anti-RAW, perhaps due to his dislike for his time as their head play-by-play guy in JR's absence.

Jerry Lawler, Michael Cole and Tazz seem like an odd pick, but with Jerry Lawler as an angry legend being forced to sit with the C-showers, this could be great. Lawler is more the fish out of water in this scenario. Michael Cole and Tazz tend to agree on things, sharing love for SmackDown! and ECW, whereas Jerry Lawler is the long-time RAW broadcaster. Cole occasionally reaches out to King, reminding them of their stint together on SmackDown!, and Lawler can say that is why he quit in the first place. As time goes on, I can see this trio really starting to work together fantastically.

Classic Matches: Josh Mathews and Jim Ross
I don't know why I'm bringing this up, but if the WWE ever decides to go back and have "hindsight commentary" on some of their older mtches, I think this would be the team to provide it. Josh Mathews is young, and as previously mentioned, can bridge the cap between play-by-play and colour commentary. Jim Ross is Good Ol' JR. He's a Hall of Famer, and legendary commentator. His style is pretty colourful, too. I can see them working well together, with JR being the traditionalist, and Mathews being a little more cynical, without being disrespectful, providing more "this is what it led to" information, whereas JR deals mainly with the "at that time" information.

[taker707]

Was watching SmackDown! last night and have to say that Michael Cole is one of the worst announcers WWE has ever had. He's just gotten worse over the years.

That is all.


Amen to that one!!!