|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Jul 13, 2023 9:37:58 GMT -5
Been watching some RA episodes recently and Booker’s initial month on SmackDown is pretty interesting.
Ignoring that fact that trading Booker and the Dudley Boyz for HHH killed a ton of their credibility (I get the story was Bischoff desperate to get HHH back and he got fleeced), Angle talked up Booker as the biggest star on Smackdown. He reasoned he demanded Booker in the trade because he was better than HHH and Booker would prove it by beating the top stars of Smackdown. Booker then experienced some pretty strong booking over the next few weeks, being portrayed as possibly better than Eddie Guerrero, and dominating RVD, Hardcore Holly, and Billy Gunn.
Then came the Undertaker feud. These two previously feuded in 2001 to no-so-great results, but it seemed like Booker was now being treated as a serious contender and being positioned as the top heel on Smackdown. Heck, he even got the upper hand on Taker a few times before Judgement Day 2004. Angle also continued to talk up Booker as the biggest star on Smackdown.
Then Judgement Day 2004 happened and…it was a glorified squash match where Taker beat Booker fairly easily. This was right after Taker re-debuted as the deadman so Booker wasn’t expected to win, but atleast make him look competent. From here, Booker was placed firmly back into the midcard where he mostly stayed for the next two years (similar to his spot on Raw), with the occasional world title match he was never realistically going to win.
Based on his early booking on Smackdown, anyone think initial plans were for Booker to be the top heel on the show, or was this always going to be a temporary thing until they built up JBL? Think the lackluster Undertaker match changed their minds on making Booker a full-time main eventer around this time?
|
|
ℍ𝕒𝕣𝕕 𝕋𝕠 𝕂𝕚𝕝𝕝
Main Eventer
ask me about how Verizon owes me over $4,000
Joined on: Nov 4, 2016 15:44:22 GMT -5
Posts: 2,514
|
Post by ℍ𝕒𝕣𝕕 𝕋𝕠 𝕂𝕚𝕝𝕝 on Jul 13, 2023 9:55:46 GMT -5
I honestly just think 2004 was the ultimate "rebuild year" for the company. People often discuss 2002 and 2003 as the "down" years following the Attitude Era/WM17 boom period. I think 2004 is by far a better example of this. Nearly the entire year lacked direction, competent stories, and the product was just down bad.
Smackdown especially was just in need of something big. I think the question at hand isn't if Booker had a clear direction or not; but its did Smackdown have a clear direction or not, or even did WWE have a clear direction or not?
I've always thought 2004 was just weird as hell and extremely forgettable.
|
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Jul 13, 2023 10:55:11 GMT -5
I honestly just think 2004 was the ultimate "rebuild year" for the company. People often discuss 2002 and 2003 as the "down" years following the Attitude Era/WM17 boom period. I think 2004 is by far a better example of this. Nearly the entire year lacked direction, competent stories, and the product was just down bad. Smackdown especially was just in need of something big. I think the question at hand isn't if Booker had a clear direction or not; but its did Smackdown have a clear direction or not, or even did WWE have a clear direction or not? I've always thought 2004 was just weird as hell and extremely forgettable. Great points, and I’ve also always seen 2004 as this weird “down year” where the company wasn’t really sure where to go. Looking solely at Smackdown, that first half of the year was rough. Brock left, Angle and Big Show were out with injuries, Benoit and Edge were on Raw, and Taker was working a part-time schedule. That’s essentially all of the top guys that led Smackdown the past two years. Yeah they got RVD, Booker, and the Dudley Boyz in the draft, but the roster and shows direction still seemed to be lacking. Doesn’t help that all four of those men’s stock seemed to be at an all time low by the time Smackdown got them either. We all know JBL was hot-shotted to the main event due to the lack of top heels that year (not a shot against him as he was a great heel), and it seemed like they were experimenting with possibly placing Booker in that spot as well. Just a shame that after a few weeks they gave up and basically used him to get Cena more over for the majority of the Summer and Fall. |
|
|
|
Post by TKO Propagandist on Jul 13, 2023 11:06:20 GMT -5
For one I know Booker was downright furious about being put on Smackdown. He later threatened to quit because he wanted to spend more time with his wife. As a solution to this, the company decided to bring her on the road.
|
|
|
|
Post by hbkbigdaddycool on Jul 13, 2023 11:34:21 GMT -5
I feel that Smackdown was really hurting in 2004 and taking the Raw talent that Triple H/Evolution squashed in 2003 like Booker T, RVD and the Dudley Boyz just didn't help Smackdown at all because they were kind of damaged goods by 2004.
Angle wasn't wrestling, Brock Lesnar had just left, JBL was just starting to become a main event guy and finding that character as a heel, where as Smackdown stars like Edge, Shelton Benjamin, Rhyno and Tajiri, as well as Chris Benoit, all were on Raw.
In 2004 Raw was the better brand, the better show and had the better PPVs. Smackdown never fully recovered. The 2002 era with Lesnar, Angle, Big Show, Benoit, Edge, Mysterio, Kidman, Hardy, Los Guerreros, Tajiri, Team Angle, etc. was a time period that was just amazing for that brand. It would never be duplicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by tmnt316 on Jul 13, 2023 11:50:14 GMT -5
Always been a big Booker T fan thought he could have been used better but he still alright for himself in WWE.
|
|
|
|
Post by The American Daydream on Jul 13, 2023 14:17:59 GMT -5
Booker should have been booked as a credible main event threat from day one imo.
Smackdown got shafted time and time again over the years after random Wrestlemania's when RAW would raid their top talent that got over leaving Smackdown with old mid-carders to turn into new main eventers or they'd just give Smackdown some big name part-timer like Taker who would show up for 4-6 months of the year.
|
|
|
|
Post by ASR (therockisback) on Jul 13, 2023 14:44:26 GMT -5
I wouldn’t have minded Booker winning the WWE Title in 04 as a heel and then Cena beats em at WM21
|
|
TheEvilDoink1987
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 22, 2010 21:37:52 GMT -5
Posts: 2,631
|
Post by TheEvilDoink1987 on Jul 16, 2023 17:36:13 GMT -5
I feel that Smackdown was really hurting in 2004 and taking the Raw talent that Triple H/Evolution squashed in 2003 like Booker T, RVD and the Dudley Boyz just didn't help Smackdown at all because they were kind of damaged goods by 2004. Angle wasn't wrestling, Brock Lesnar had just left, JBL was just starting to become a main event guy and finding that character as a heel, where as Smackdown stars like Edge, Shelton Benjamin, Rhyno and Tajiri, as well as Chris Benoit, all were on Raw. In 2004 Raw was the better brand, the better show and had the better PPVs. Smackdown never fully recovered. The 2002 era with Lesnar, Angle, Big Show, Benoit, Edge, Mysterio, Kidman, Hardy, Los Guerreros, Tajiri, Team Angle, etc. was a time period that was just amazing for that brand. It would never be duplicated. 2002 Smackdown was definitely a great era to be a wrestling fan. Got some major Shut Your Mouth memories flooding in. |
|
Hogan VS Flair
