![]() Jim Ross said the VERY SAME THINGS about wrestlers in NWA once he landed the lead role. He said the same things about Bret Hart not hooking a leg and Hogan wasting too much time between moves. I've heard that a hundred times from folks and I simply don't see that as anything more than a competent commentator trying to make the ridiculous looking athletes of his promotion look good. Mean Gene Okerlund and Lord Alfred Hayes were much, MUCH worse that Monsoon. So, while I now have a better understanding of why Monsoon was so disliked, I completely disagree with it. I can see a football announcer or baseball announcer being pilloried for bias, but a pro wrestling announcer? Today the act seems and is forced by Cole and others. Aren't we in on the joke that he's blindly biased to the faces? I can hear him trying not laugh when one of his babyface bullshit webs comes back to trap him. ![]() The issue I have is that it's pro wrestling. Your first paragraph really helps in my understanding of why he was so disliked by certain groups of fans/writers. I think his enthusiasm, like you say, carried the day and never wavered. I saw the man every week on Wrestling Challenge, that was show he usually hosted, and I was never able to stay awake long enough to watch much of PTW in the 80s, but he never really got on my nerves or seemed repetitive. It was before my time, so I've really only seen the SNMEs and PPVs, but maybe if you threw in Superstars and whatever other shows, he would start to get more repetitive and irritating. He's a good commentator, and he was the right one for his era, but I think if we were to see him week-in and week-out like Cole, King, etc., we would get tired of him, so I can understand how some people who followed WWF closely might not have been a fan. The blatant bias for babyfaces is the only thing that really bothers me about his commentary while I'm actually watching. ![]() Also, some of the shortcomings of his commentary could be kind of endearing when combined with his enthusiasm. At least, Monsoon would do a decent job of calling moves beyond the finish. Personally, I find him to be very charismatic, so I can get over some of these shortcomings, and I think anyone saying he's the worst when McMahon was one of his contemporaries is just delusional. He was morally hypocritical, chastising heel tactics when used by villains but encouraging them when used by fan favorites, like Hogan. Along with that, he relied heavily on clichés and catch-phrases, sometimes not even using them correctly, and his propensity for use of hyperbole could sometimes rival that of Tony Schiavone, only making the clichés seem even dumber. He frequently put himself and his personality over at the expense of the performers and had pointless arguments with Heenan or Ventura. Some of them are things we often mock in the commentary of today. I actually quite like him, but I suppose if you nitpick, it isn't too hard to find legitimate flaws. I don't buy that he's the worst commentator.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |