Raw 3-7

[noumenon]

It's quite simply put. You know when you attend a wrestling event you know something is different but you can't figure out what. All of a sudden you realize...OH SHIT, NO COMMENTARY! Now the live atmosphere of the crowd more than makes up for the otherwise awkward silence of a match. The commentary is indeed there to make the viewer at home feel something that you can only feel from being in the crowd, the commentary is there to convey that emotion to you as best as possible.

 

[Kaedon]

How do you NOT feel the emotion of a great match, no matter where you are? One of my all time favorite matches is John Cena vs. Chris Jericho from Summerslam 2005 and it had DICK to do with the commentary and everything to do with the crowd.

 

[monkeystyle]

It's simple. It's all psychology. When you are in a live crowd there is a collective energy there that's not there watching from home. They cannot air a silent program on television. You have to engage the viewer in another manner. They do that through commentators who do their best to enhance the action for you at home, whereas at a live show, you have that collective energy to engage you in the action.

Now, maybe you prefer not to have the commentary or would watch an essentially silent program but I would venture the guess that you are in the minority on that one. But regardless of that even, you need to learn to understand (because you clearly do not) that your personal preferences do not define anyone but you.

You ask this:

How do you NOT feel the emotion of a great match, no matter where you are? One of my all time favorite matches is John Cena vs. Chris Jericho from Summerslam 2005 and it had DICK to do with the commentary and everything to do with the crowd.

And the answer is simple; because people have different preferences.

 

[Kaedon]

It's simple. It's all psychology. When you are in a live crowd there is a collective energy there that's not there watching from home. They cannot air a silent program on television. You have to engage the viewer in another manner. They do that through commentators who do their best to enhance the action for you at home, whereas at a live show, you have that collective energy to engage you in the action.

Now, maybe you prefer not to have the commentary or would watch an essentially silent program but I would venture the guess that you are in the minority on that one. But regardless of that even, you need to learn to understand (because you clearly do not) that your personal preferences do not define anyone but you.

You ask this:

And the answer is simple; because people have different preferences.

The show would NOT be silent, you can still hear the crowd, you can still feel their energy when a guy hits a signature move or when a heel barks at them. I'm not saying "there doesn't need to be any commentary" there is a place for it, but I think almost everyone is overvaluing what a commentator does.

 

[monkeystyle]

The show would NOT be silent, you can still hear the crowd, you can still feel their energy when a guy hits a signature move or when a heel barks at them.

That's not engaging. Freud (and numerous others) said that being a part of a crowd suspends aspects of independent thought and allows more of a collective thought process to take place. Thereby enhancing whatever it is the crowd is taking part in. Most people will not experience that at home, alone, outside of a crowd. Perhaps there are those that do, but they are not the norm. Human beings are social creatures and need to be engaged. That's what the commentators do for those who cannot experience the crowd.

 

[Kaedon]

That's not engaging. Freud (and numerous others) said that being a part of a crowd suspends aspects of independent thought and allows more of a collective thought process to take place. Thereby enhancing whatever it is the crowd is taking part in. Most people will not experience that at home, alone, outside of a crowd. Perhaps there are those that do, but they are not the norm. Human beings are social creatures and need to be engaged. That's what the commentators do for those who cannot experience the crowd.

Tell me how one can not experience the crowd when you still hear them and their emotions going up and down with the match. I mean, is it the same as being there? Hell no, but it's not as if you are completely disengaged unless you have a commentator. When WCW was building up Goldbricker and they pumped those chants into the arena, over live TV, that shit got people going AT HOME. Who gave a fuck about what Scavonie was saying....all you knew was you got chills when his music hit and those chants started because you could feel the crowd.

 

[monkeystyle]

Do you really want me to go into detail on how crowd psychology actually works? I will if you ask me to, but if I do you better fucking read it.

 

[Kaedon]

Do you really want me to go into detail on how crowd psychology actually works? I will if you ask me to, but if I do you better fucking read it.

I know how crowd psychology works, what I want to know is why it is supposedly IMPOSSIBLE to get involved from home unless you have a great speaker behind the mic.

 

[monkeystyle]

I don't think that you do. I don't mean the 'pro wrestling working a crowd' crowd psychology, I mean the real thing.

Anyway, I didn't say it was impossible. I simply said that it wasn't the common response. There are of course, always exceptions to rules. On my side, I can think of one match off the top of my head that was made for me at home, by the crowd. The rest of the time though, I want the commentary.

I would go as far as to say that that might be the only one too.

 

[Kaedon]

I don't think that you do. I don't mean the 'pro wrestling working a crowd' crowd psychology, I mean the real thing.

Anyway, I didn't say it was impossible. I simply said that it wasn't the common response.

Impossible for the "average" person, fine. And I know how crowd psychology works from a workers standpoint. I've found myself yelling at a heel through my TV numerous times because I let myself get so caught up in it. I've let out guttural YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHs when something great happens to, regardless of who's around me. I've never stopped and gone "Oh wait, what did JR just say? Oh he's excited so I should be excited too?"

 

[monkeystyle]

Impossible for the "average" person, fine.

So you consider yourself to be above average?

And I know how crowd psychology works from a workers standpoint.

Ugh, no. The fucking psychology of crowds. Contagion vs Convergence. The hive mind like mentalities that crop up when crowds gather. Did you take first year psych?

I've found myself yelling at a heel through my TV numerous times because I let myself get so caught up in it. I've let out guttural YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHs when something great happens to, regardless of who's around me. I've never stopped and gone "Oh wait, what did JR just say? Oh he's excited so I should be excited too?"

We all do that but I don't see how that relates to crowds. That is an individual's response to an occurance. Not everybody is going to have that response at that particular time.

 

[Kaedon]

So you consider yourself to be above average?

No, I just consider myself to be NOT average I guess. Then again you're the one who said it saying I wasn't in the norm.

Ugh, no. The fucking psychology of crowds. Contagion vs Convergence. The hive mind like mentalities that crop up when crowds gather. Did you take first year psych?

I read your comment wrong, but yes I understand the hive mentality, once again just because you arent there doesnt mean you cant get swept up in it.

We all do that but I don't see how that relates to crowds. That is an individual's response to an occurance. Not everybody is going to have that response at that particular time.

Its because I'm getting caught up in that crowd mentality. I hear them boo, and sometimes I get with them and go "Yeah FUCK THAT GUY" regardless of whether or not there was a supreme amount of talent on commentary.

 

[MizMasta3000]

Complain about Matthews all you want but he isn't shit compared to the horrid Scott Stanford on Superstars.

 

[phantomgerald]

Well from whats been floating around, Lawler was going to have Jimmy Hart manage him, which makes sense since Hart managed and feuded with him back in the Memphis days. I don't know how much truth there was to that, but again, it's about the bottom line, money. Plus this is nothing more than a spectacle than a match.

I agree, SCSA sells enough tickets to not care what the smarks like us think. It's all about getting your star names a spot.

The show would NOT be silent, you can still hear the crowd, you can still feel their energy when a guy hits a signature move or when a heel barks at them. I'm not saying "there doesn't need to be any commentary" there is a place for it, but I think almost everyone is overvaluing what a commentator does.

What you need to do is watch TNA, and their horrid commentary, and know that no match can live through that.

 

[Luke Flywalker]

I think the Austin presence is getting overthought though. Austin is simply a character who doesn't give a damn and does what he wants, when he wants. That alone explains AUSTIN himself getting involved.

No in terms of fitting in, I still say watch on the next couple of weeks. I really doubt they fumble the ball when they've built such an incredible story for this... I really can't see them not having something written for this.