Yes, kids who grow up now in 20 years will be looking back saying that all the people who voted on Michael Cole for worst announcer were stupid, that he's the standard for announcers, he was so funny, witty, his insults were great, and that Mason Ryan was really a fantastic in-ring worker and the guys like Dolph Ziggler who diss him in shoot interviews were just bitter old overrated hacks.
It's called the circle of life.
As I said, you didn't get phone calls from WWE wrestlers all the time after seeing how their match was called and their psychology was completely undercut.
For all the faults of Vince, he built the psychology of their match. Gorilla squashed it. Gorilla was great as Heenan's foil, but if you were a heel trying to get heat using legitimate moves and Gorilla made fun of you by saying the babyface would never submit, why even bother, and if you were going for the pin, and the style didn't allow you to hook the leg, so you didn't, and he got himself over by talking about it all the time, you wondered why you even bothered with a near fall. And those are just some of the examples.
Look, this is no different from the Calgary people who to this day think Ed Whalen is the god of wrestling announcers, but try and be a wrestler or booker when Ed was announcing and get over, or a fan who didn't have blind eyes to Ed as your childhood announcer, and it's a different story.
Like I said, circle of life. Guys who are total shit today will be remembered in 25 years as being classic great performers. I already get people who talk about 1999 and 2000 WCW as this great era of wrestling.
Yeah, I think WWF heels would know the context of what they were trying to get across in their match and the style they are told to work.
It's not like it was WCW wrestlers watching saying how Monsoon was botching the match by the call, it was the guys who were working the match based on the parameters they were told to work by the promotion, for the audience there, and then getting undercut to the television viewer because the announcer wanted to get himself over as being smart instead of the match and the talent over.
At least that was the perception of the people in the context in the ring trying to get over at the time.
Whalen was worse. Try being a heel in Calgary or a booker trying to get heat when he treated angles as comedy. Try drawing money with an angle when he edited the angle off TV (he botched the entire Dynamite Kid vs. Davey Boy Smith desperation angle needed to save the promotion because he didn't like the idea of them feuding). But today, anyone who grew up in Calgary believes Ed was the greatest wrestling announcer there ever was.
Then Bill Mercer was the best announcer of his era, because nobody on television came across more over than the Von Erichs, including Hogan.
And Cole was as good as Ross, because Austin & Rock were just as over coming out when Ross announced as they were when Cole announced.
Vince was the lead announcer on the A show that most of the angles and personalities were sold on during that era. Gorilla did the B show which replayed the angles that had already been taped on the A show.
My God. Guys who knew the story of the match they were trying to tell were too stupid to know that the psychology of the match they were trying to tell wasn't really the psychology of the match they were trying to tell.
Does anyone think here.
I've been through generations. People now think Honky Tonk Man was the greatest Intercontinental champion of all-time and guys like Ted DiBiase and Bobby Heenan were bitter old men because they said Warrior was a shitty wrestler on that DVD.
I know people who grew up here who think the studio wrestling show in front of 75 people where they did two angles a year and piped in worse fake crowd noise than Impact was better than Raw and Nitro at their peaks.
Nothing wrong with it. It's the circle of life. You'll understand it years later when people on message boards get mad at people who said Edge vs Kane sucked as a program and didn't draw, when you grew up and thought it was classic wrestling for the era and you're just a bitter person who didn't know what you were watching.
But please, when you say that the guys in the ring calling the match telling the story mad at the announcer for ruining their story, giving valid points as examples, didn't understand their own match, think for a second.
And Vince called those same matches completely differently, in fact, Vince went too far in the other direction, always putting over the near falls so strongly that you also knew they weren't the finish, but at least you have to learn Vince's psychology before figuring that out.
And when it comes to submissions, what gets a match over:
"I can't believe he hasn't submitted to that abdominal stretch, that tears your back and sides out"
"You'll never get a guy like Mike Rotundo would never submit, why is he putting that hold on him."