WWE Commentary: Top 5 Most Annoying Frequently Used Phrases
The commentary team on any WWE program has the ability to make or break the enjoyment of the show a fan is watching. One of the reasons why Jim Ross will always hold that hallowed position of "Best Play-by-Play Man Ever" is because his words made us believe even the weakest of moments were important.
Today's commentary team, no matter what the combination, lack the conviction of yesteryear's wordsmiths of the commentary booth. Personally, I feel that some of the commentators currently employed by WWE do have the ability to be better than they are. The problem is that WWE currently loves buzzwords.
it's easy to see why. Whenever someone mentions space or planets in the galaxy, how long does it take for you to think of the term WWE Universe? Oddly enough, this didn't make my list because I actually understand its reasoning and to an extent it makes sense.
Everyone loves to give their fanbase a term to reference them by. Even if its a cringe-worthy, horribly cheap term.
Anyway, enough stalling; let's move on to my top five most annoying frequently-used commentary terms, lines and phrases (and post your own hated commentary lines in the comments below).
5) Raw Is the Longest-Running Weekly Episodic Show in Television History
Ever since WWE Raw gained this fantastic milestone, they have never let us forget it. Michael Cole every week since the show gained this status had managed to wedge this comment into Raw at least once a broadcast.
Sure it's an impressive accolade, but the fans of the show who are tuning in every week do not need to know that the show, which keeps broadcasting every week, is maintaining its record. Some people even contest the fact that Raw is truly the longest weekly show.
Personally I think its true, but is merely a tweaking of figures to make WWE look better than they are. Weekly Episodic after all means that it produced one single show a week.
In the United Kingdom, soap opera Coronation Street has produced multiple episodes weekly, non-stop since 1960. So while Raw is correct in using the term, there are plenty that have run longer and produced more.
Still, it has become a redundant statement, as it stops being impressive if you mention it constantly.
4) Orton with the Scoop Slam
No, he didn't; he used a Powerslam!
The first few times I accepted it. I genuinely thought that it was an honest slip of the tongue from Michael Cole. I imagine it would be easy enough. After all, the move does require a scooping motion. But Matt Striker, at the 2010 Hell in a Cell PPV, corrected Cole.
However, Orton during his match with Sheamus hit the Powerslam. What did Cole say? "Scoopslam! Scoopslam! Scoopslam!"
Now while Striker's commentary was easy to ridicule due to his over-dramatic qualities (I seriously didn't believe Orton dislocated his shoulder at Over the Limit 2010 until I saw the injury, despite Striker's comments), Cole seriously showed some unprofessional behaviour because he was shown up.
To this day, he still calls the move wrong.
3) Anything Jerry Lawler Says About Divas in the PG-Era
Jerry "The King" Lawler. A fantastic performer back in his day and an excellent heel co-commentator throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. Now Jerry Lawler has never made it a secret about his feelings towards the Divas.
Once upon a time he would always be going on about "Puppies" when female performers were in the ring and yet today when his language is more restricted, he sounds a lot more perverse.
Maybe its because it was better when he was allowed to be more open with his opinions because we could just accept that it was his character. Then again it could be the fact that Lawler was in his 40s when he joined the company, yet today is in his 60s.
Lawler gets older but the women he continues to praise seem to remain in their 20s. Jerry Lawler is like that member of the family you never introduce your girlfriend to because you are always worried what he might say.
2) John Cena Is the Most Controversial Superstar in the WWE
This is WWE's way of trying to make a positive about their top name getting a mixed reaction. After all, it's not good that the guy who WWE promotes as their best ever gets some of the loudest negative reactions over the top heels.
Since being controversial is about being the subject of constant debate, in some regards they are correct when Cena gets this title. Then again I can't really say "Let's Go Cena!" followed by "Cena Sucks!" a proper debate.
I'm just annoyed by WWE's constant efforts to cover up their own shortcomings when making Cena their top face. After all he followed, some more realistic heroes that would taking beatings, lose as much as they won, so that when their ultimate victory arose, it was much sweeter.
Another line similar to this is "No one gets a bigger reaction from the crowd/emotional response than John Cena."
Once again, its one of those times WWE puts a positive spin on a negative aspect of their company, instead of trying to improve it.
1) The Champion Only Has a X% Chance of Retaining His/Her Championship
"In this Fatal Four-Way, each competitor has a 25 percent chance of victory."
Another one of Michael Cole's diamonds which has unfortunately spread to the rest of the commentary team.
At first thought you probably agree with this. A match that contains four wrestlers can have only one winner. The problem is that this logic only applies to events that are random.
Just stop to think for a moment. If this match was between Big Show, Kane, Mark Henry and Tyson Kidd, something tells me that Kidd would not have such an even chance against three giants.
In the end, its one of those lines that the commentators use because they are trying to make themselves sound smarter than they really are and statistical.
It would be better if they just stuck to real facts, such as bringing up how many of the type of match a certain wrestler has won or lost.
The reason why this ranks at the top is because out of the five I have mentioned, this is the only one I can say is 100 percent wrong.
The others could be contested and challenged, but this particular phrase is one that no matter how much could be argued as a positive quote, will always be incorrect.