|
|
Post by The Legendary Ring Troll {BLM} on Jan 28, 2011 8:33:41 GMT -5
So I think Matt Striker has potential to be a very decent color commentator. However, there's just something about his style that has seemed off compared to other commentators. And I think I finally figured out what it is.
I'm watching a SmackDown right now and Striker just randomly blurted out a bit of info and then connected the situation to said word.
I can't quite remember what it was, but for example:
"Football is great, and like football, these men have to run for the goal posts to achieve victory."
But...that's not how it works. You don't say something, and then make a quip using that. If Cole or Mathews said something about football, THEN you make the quip. It's stupid and sounds forced when he does it like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Jan 28, 2011 8:35:00 GMT -5
His commentary suffers whenever he is with Cole or Lawler, because they are both terrible and make no effort to connect with him. He is a great commentator, but if your play by play isnt co operating with you, you dont function.,
|
|
Outcry
AC Slater
I'm The Next Breakout Star
Posts: 127
|
Post by Outcry on Jan 28, 2011 9:23:17 GMT -5
Also says things like "One of the most talented and charismatic superstars of all time" and then says it about some random upper midcarder.
|
|
|
|
Post by strykerdarksilence on Jan 28, 2011 9:41:03 GMT -5
He's on a par with Adamle/Coachman et al for worst commentator in WWE.
|
|
|
|
Post by Azrael from Outerspace on Jan 28, 2011 9:57:44 GMT -5
Striker is decent, but was much better when he first got the job. He just seems to be trying to hard to play the hip announcer character. Now Scott Stanford on the other hand. He is the commentator of the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Zero on Jan 28, 2011 12:41:47 GMT -5
He's actually putting over what's happening in the ring. That makes him somewhat stick out against Michael Cole and Lawler who're either blathering about the main event or are too busy putting themselves over.
|
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Jan 28, 2011 12:44:05 GMT -5
He's actually putting over what's happening in the ring. That makes him somewhat stick out against Michael Cole and Lawler who're either blathering about the main event or are too busy putting themselves over. Absolutely. His exaggerated backstories and elaborate nicknames are keeping people in the audiences memory. I always think of Beth as the 21st Century Femme Fatale, and Yoshi as the Poison Fist of the Pacific Rim. But like I said, Cole keeps cutting him off inorder to get himself over. |
|
|
|
Post by strykerdarksilence on Jan 28, 2011 12:44:17 GMT -5
He's actually putting over what's happening in the ring. That makes him somewhat stick out against Michael Cole and Lawler who're either blathering about the main event or are too busy putting themselves over. He used to do that. Now he waffles on so much it sounds like he just wants to get the most random, pointless and irritating diatribes on air for his own entertainment. |
|
Beartato
Hank Scorpio
Conspiracy Victim
Posts: 5,913
|
Post by Beartato on Jan 28, 2011 12:47:43 GMT -5
His commentary suffers whenever he is with Cole or Lawler, because they are both terrible and make no effort to connect with him. He is a great commentator, but if your play by play isnt co operating with you, you dont function., Exactly. It's hard to call the match when your partners are trying to put themselves over. When Stryker is calling a match I could actually tell what the wrestlers are doing without looking at the screen. Hell, I could even tell WHO is wrestling, something I can't really do with Michael Cole. He's like how King was when JR showed up on Old School Raw. Everyone hates King's commentary these days, and I see why, but he was fired the hell up when he was with JR again. It was great to hear. He still has it, he just doesn't really want to be with Cole (or just without JR) |
|
nisidhe
Hank Scorpio
O Superman....O judge....O Mom and Dad....
Posts: 5,725 
|
Post by nisidhe on Jan 28, 2011 13:05:20 GMT -5
It's simple, really. Cole should not be at the booth, period. Lawler can work with some, but obviously not all; and, while they'll never be confused with Monsoon and Heenan, at least Lawler can add some funny color commentary with the right straight PBP, which Stryker can be. Cole can either be revealed as the RAW GM and start ruling openly from that point forward, or he can reign in the heel commentary act. The way things are do _not_ help Raw by any stretch of the imagination in my view.
|
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Jan 28, 2011 13:10:16 GMT -5
Cole needs to become a manager or the GM, because he is ruining matches. He almost destroyed Beth vs Layla last week, and almost ruined Daniel Bryan vs Swagger at Old School Raw.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 13:10:23 GMT -5
On SD, he made a great Gary Busey reference in regards to Swagger.
I thought it was hilarious.
|
|
Big L
Grimlock
Posts: 13,883
|
Post by Big L on Jan 28, 2011 13:10:57 GMT -5
Striker is decent, but was much better when he first got the job. He just seems to be trying to hard to play the hip announcer character. Now Scott Stanford on the other hand. He is the commentator of the future. He's right |
|
|
|
Post by The Spelunker! on Jan 28, 2011 13:16:31 GMT -5
Striker needs a partner he can bounce off of, as opposed to Lawler, Cole, or Grisham.
|
|
|
|
Post by Young Game on Jan 28, 2011 13:18:17 GMT -5
Does the WWE drug-test their color commentators?
|
|
|
|
Post by Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill on Jan 28, 2011 13:31:29 GMT -5
Striker needs a partner he can bounce off of, as opposed to Lawler, Cole, or Grisham. To be honest, I think he worked well with Grisham. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnybaseball, Mantaur Fan on Jan 28, 2011 13:50:03 GMT -5
I've been waiting for someone to make this thread so I could make my first post. I have just gotten back into wrestling after not watching for 10 years and the major difference, to me, is the commentary. They're all terrible at it. Almost everything Matt Striker says can be grouped into two categories: (a) Some movie-poster-tagline style cliches, like "When an opportunity presents itself, ONE MAN rises to the challenge" and (b) an explanation of how smart a given superstar is for focusing his attack on another superstar's body part, because it is key in that superstar using his powerful finishing maneuver. It doesn't sound natural at all, but none of them do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Zero on Jan 28, 2011 13:53:40 GMT -5
I've been waiting for someone to make this thread so I could make my first post. I have just gotten back into wrestling after not watching for 10 years and the major difference, to me, is the commentary. They're all terrible at it. Almost everything Matt Striker says can be grouped into two categories: (a) Some movie-poster-tagline style cliches, like "When an opportunity presents itself, ONE MAN rises to the challenge" and (b) an explanation of how smart a given superstar is for focusing his attack on another superstar's body part, because it is key in that superstar using his powerful finishing maneuver. It doesn't sound natural at all, but none of them do. And yet, again, that's putting over what's happening in the ring, which is a damn sight more than what anyone else on RAW or Smackdown is doing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 14:01:05 GMT -5
On SD, he made a great Gary Busey reference in regards to Swagger. I thought it was hilarious. Now that you mention it, the two look kind of similar. Similar face structure. |
|
|
|
Post by thuschongswing on Jan 28, 2011 14:40:11 GMT -5
I just realized what I hate hate HATE about his commentary more than anything. His wishy-washyness. "Some say that Cody Rhodes pulling the tights is cheatings, and others say it's simply a smart tactic!" ARGH JUST PICK A SIDE WHY DONTCHA STRIKER  |
|
