by Brian Phelps
Also, what does it say about your organization when you have to keep bringing back Jim Ross to pop a better rating? That means that Jim Ross is a bigger draw than the actual wrestlers themselves. Why don't you just leave Jim Ross on commentary? If your rating dips every time he's not on RAW, then why keep taking him off? If your company is in a transition phase then you push new wrestlers. However, the commentating team doesn't matter. The commentating booth doesn't suffer just because Jim Ross gets older. So once again I ask what's the point? Stop having Michael Cole wrestle. No one wants to see it. No one EVER wanted to see it. No one ever wanted to see two commentators wrestle. No one gives a rats tail about Michael Cole and Jim Ross feuding on Twitter lol, or challenging each other.You won't give Zack Ryder, Ted Dibiase, or Primo a real feud or air time, but you will waste valuable mic time and squander the creative teams efforts by having them take time to write out an off-and-on year long feud and pay-per-view matches for commentators when there are 50 hungry wrestlers in the back waiting for their shot at the big time? People can say what they want about TNA Wrestling, but until I see Mike Tenay vs Don West headlining Bound For Glory I can't criticize TNA too much.
No comments:
Post a Comment