The single biggest mistake the company made was 2 create a second show, which would accomodate all the roster. A second entity that would allow ALL the talent 2 be exhibited fairly... FAIL!!!
Not in whole to its stupidly thought through name, but partly 2 the potential for what I call " roster relegation". Initially the show was ok, it replaced that hole wcw left, acting like a lubed up version of the wwe product 4 all those die hard nitro fans who wanted wrasslin, but would never bend down 2 the old enemy RAW.
Because of its heavy association with the Rock, it was accepted by current fans as something similar 2 the aformentioned great one:
In your face
Brash
Clever
Edgy
Slick etc
All those things were true in the start, which u would expect as it naturally took on the form of Raw mark 2 or Raw lite! Over time however, as the attitude era crossfaded into the pg era. The brand became an extension of the WWE training programme, stars would learn their craft on Smackdown and once they made a name 4 themselves, they would be drafted onto the premier brand.
Such was or is its (imo) indie image, that even when a star was at the height of the company as champion, they would still not really be validated until they went 2 Raw.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kCGJLdh6iZY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DkCGJLdh6iZY
Although the above was ironically the begining of the end for the brand as a critically acclaimed show. Im sure someone will do a discussion on why as it would be a quality discussion.
Anyway I digress, Smackdown suffered from what it should have feared most and that was a credible competitor. TNA may have been a long way from WWE, but it snapped up a lot of quality stars from Vince, imo one of the most complete character in WWE history Kurt Angle. Characters who could have given the brand some weight. But alas creative believed in tiering the products and thus booking in liue of such.
The better wrestlers, and I mean in ring talent are on Smackdown. The big presence guys are on Raw.
Raw top guys:
Cena
Henry
Punk
Lesnar
Smackdown:
Del Rio
Ziggler
Seamus
......Orton and Daniel Bryan
Bryan reached the ceiling of popularity and is being promoted, Orton has behaved himself and is now being promoted too. This now leaves Smackdown without 2 of its most credible stars! In the early days when all was great, a Batista or a Jericho would have gone the other way....but watch this space coz Smackdown wont see a thing.
The E have a choice 2 make regarding Smackdown and re jig the WHOLE concept of the show, as its become a sad indictment of the product as a whole. Devoid of direction, lazy and hugely stagnant.
how 2 solve a problem like Smackdown?!
posted on 17/7/13
you only need know one thing. what network carries each show. that answers how smackdown sells compared to raw...
posted on 17/7/13
Interesting, divulge please?
posted on 18/7/13
Hard for me to comment as i haven't watched a full SD episode in years, dunno what it's like these days.
As you said, it retained purpose during the aftermath of the Monday Night Wars not just from a psychological continuation standpoint but a practical one given WWE had shed loads of superstars on their books. And while it was horrid, cheap booking strategy in my eyes, there's a concieveable argument that it had vaildity during the Cena/Batista era as both characters were to high maintenance to compete for the approval of the fanbase under one roof, both always required a certain level of invincibility to stay over which both couldn't have got without Smackdown's existence.
Now a days there is no purpose for SD really other than to potentially be the show where they embrace risk taking. Growing up i was a massive fan of Buffy, but as much as i got into the latter series i don't think i could've been completely satisified with the overall product in front of me towards the end without Angel as an alternative - solely because that was the show where Joss Whedon broke alot of the generic patterns that were always ever-present in Buffy and increasingly waning as the series's kept coming. It gave the viewer another aspect of his universe they'd never have gotten in his primary show, that's what SD should be to WWE. The surreal, hippe hybrid of Raw, NOT just a watered down Raw......... that's where i liked your Ziggler/Swagger (heel vs heel) concept for SD awhile back
posted on 18/7/13
I remember that dission, SD would work of it was as u say a hybrid of Raw. This would negate feeling brand tiering. Are u suggesting that performers stay exclusively 2 SD? That SD has its own paradigm it exists within?
Would dratfing still occur?
Would a new title be necessary?
Would we see a new and seperate writing team?
posted on 19/7/13
smackdown originally was great, it would just carry on the storylines from raw but obviously as the pool of wrestlers has increased they all want their airtime so it is what it is, didnt sunday night heat air as almost a 3rd show a while back or was that just before ppv events?
posted on 19/7/13
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 19/7/13
At the moment, Nxt is better than both
posted on 19/7/13
Never seen NXT, may check it out.
As 4 the heavyweight title, tje cynic in ke says it is indeed dead and lets face it, Vince used it as a 2 fingers 2 Ted Turner by having HIS premier title as his secondary one.
As 4 its relevance 2 the ic title, SPOT ON! It has completely diminished the prestige of the title. The ic title held a specific place in the psychi of the viewer, when a person got the ic belt u knew a WWF title push was on, so we would invest so much subject matter into it.
But since the HW title arrived the title structure we grew up with, and relied on for our sense of subjective direction if u will, diminished and the rot started.
Smackdown would benefit greatly if it went more creative, because clearly creative have been hamstrung by Linda Mcmahon and her desire to cater for kids.
We can only dream?
Why dnt u agree with a name change im curious?