Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,761 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
By that I mean, is his commentary deliberately meant to be bad, or is really just a bad commentator? Either way, he always gets on Cole's nerves, and I think he's hillarious in his current role. But I've always wondered this question since he came back to WWE. Thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,717 Posts
I think he is meant to be deliberately bad.

Apparently he got the gig because he used to do commentary backstage for the entertainment of the locker room and they thought it was funny enough to give him a proper go on air.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,587 Posts
I agree that he's hilarious in his current role. I think he's deliberately meant to be bad, as his role is of the light-hearted, humorous, colorful character that is intended to provide some funny commentary during the more serious moments of wrestling. And he is supposed to clash with the serious heel character of Michael Cole.

His commentary makes sitting through the majority of the crap on SmackDown almost bearable.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,743 Posts
Booker T is what holds Smackdown together when it's struggling and just has awesome chemistry with Michael Cole. I wouldn't really say Booker is supposed to be strictly a comic relief but he's definitely not supposed to be taken seriously either. He has his own unique way of commentary and I don't think you can really dislike the guy even if you tried. Michael Cole is probally my favorite commentator of all time but Booker T does put over the product a lot more when comparing him to Cole so he's a lot less hated. The fact is that the guy is entertaining from every perspective. He makes pointless jobber matches involving Jinder, Dibiase, Ezekiel Jackson, and Hunico actually half way interesting. Booker T is so unique and so entertaining I would go as far as to say he should be on Raw with Cole as well. That's not really saying much since he would replace the worst current commentator in the WWE Jerry Lawler.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,281 Posts
I think when he first started he was just a really bad commentator but Vince thought it was funny so now he exaggerates it and he's turned into a caricature of himself.

I like him, his and Cole's banter is one of the reason I actually watch Smackdown. Having the "straight man" in Josh Mathews helps too as he can call the match while those two evolve their characters haha.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,483 Posts
DoubleDeckerBar;11150439[B said:
I think when he first started he was just a really bad commentator but Vince thought it was funny so now he exaggerates it and he's turned into a caricature of himself.
[/B]
I like him, his and Cole's banter is one of the reason I actually watch Smackdown. Having the "straight man" in Josh Mathews helps too as he can call the match while those two evolve their characters haha.
I have to agree Booker was terrible when he first started but now he has improved but he still comes out with some weird stuff and makes errors which almost seem too deliberate.I like Booker on commentary he is very funny.Below is some great observation on commentary when he was King Booker

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,555 Posts
Not at All...Booker is solid at comedy relief but in Moments like HIAC Miz & Truth attack he's absolutely awful...And to answer your question Amsterdam no,not at all sometimes he just fucks up like Michael Cole and Jerry Lawler do
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top