|
|
Post by keegandimitrijevic01 on Apr 9, 2019 14:46:51 GMT -5
Back then, it seemed like Raw wasn't even close to Smackdown. Smackdown had about 10 ELITE performers while Raw only had about 3. What changes should have been made to make Raw more competitive with Smackdown? Moving Undertaker after a while? Moving Triple H to Smackdown in exchange? raw always seemed like the storytelling show, whereas Smackdown was mostly about the in-ring action. Your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by hbkbigdaddycool on Apr 9, 2019 15:56:08 GMT -5
This is my take on the brand split in those years.
When the brand first took place, Smackdown had the bigger stars, but Raw felt fresh and new. Guys like Bubba Ray, Jeff Hardy, Stevie Richards, Eddie Guerrero and RVD were all winning titles, or getting pushes.
Smackdown had the bigger stars, and their show seemed bigger. They had Hogan, Triple H, Jericho, Edge, Angle, Storm, Christian, Test, Mysterio, Rikishi, it was just a more star studded show.
In summer of 2002, Raw tried to make their show better by adding Triple H, Jericho, Test, Storm and Christian. Smackdown got Lesnar, Benoit and Guerrero, and somehow, that made Smackdown even better than before. We then got the Smackdown six.
Raw was trying to build new stars in Orton and Batista, but thanks to injuries, the late 2002 and early 2003 year had them both wiped out. So while Raw ran on Triple H dominating all past WCW stars in Steiner, Booker and Nash, Smackdown had Lesnar vs. Angle feud, as well as new stars like Cena getting ready.
It wasn't until when Chris Benoit jumped ship from Smackdown to Raw, that Raw got good. Then came Edge, and Benjamin, and Raw just seemed stronger. I think Raw dominated Smackdown until the brand split ended in.... 2009 I wanna say??
|
|
|
|
Post by HandsomeHollywood on Apr 9, 2019 16:02:04 GMT -5
I went through this era recently in preparation for a podcast that never came to fruition.
The Raw portion was the biggest waste of time. Especially the build to and after Mania 19 (with the exception of Jericho/Y2J).
|
|
|
|
Post by LA Times on Apr 9, 2019 20:32:47 GMT -5
Paul Heyman was booking Smackdown at the time and Raw was HHH's Reign of Terror.
|
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Apr 10, 2019 0:42:08 GMT -5
i still liked raw quite a bit in that time. rvd was the man, bischoff and stone cold were initially fresh GMs, I was and am a big fan of ric flair so seeing his career revived was cool. Jeff Hardy was a rising star. but yes, the combination of established talent, the right choices for developing young talent, and the creative direction of Heyman could NOT be matched.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenjack1992 on Apr 10, 2019 2:19:22 GMT -5
This is my take on the brand split in those years. When the brand first took place, Smackdown had the bigger stars, but Raw felt fresh and new. Guys like Bubba Ray, Jeff Hardy, Stevie Richards, Eddie Guerrero and RVD were all winning titles, or getting pushes. Smackdown had the bigger stars, and their show seemed bigger. They had Hogan, Triple H, Jericho, Edge, Angle, Storm, Christian, Test, Mysterio, Rikishi, it was just a more star studded show. In summer of 2002, Raw tried to make their show better by adding Triple H, Jericho, Test, Storm and Christian. Smackdown got Lesnar, Benoit and Guerrero, and somehow, that made Smackdown even better than before. We then got the Smackdown six. Raw was trying to build new stars in Orton and Batista, but thanks to injuries, the late 2002 and early 2003 year had them both wiped out. So while Raw ran on Triple H dominating all past WCW stars in Steiner, Booker and Nash, Smackdown had Lesnar vs. Angle feud, as well as new stars like Cena getting ready. It wasn't until when Chris Benoit jumped ship from Smackdown to Raw, that Raw got good. Then came Edge, and Benjamin, and Raw just seemed stronger. I think Raw dominated Smackdown until the brand split ended in.... 2009 I wanna say?? 2012. I agree with all of this. |
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,953
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Apr 10, 2019 10:02:54 GMT -5
Back then, it seemed like Raw wasn't even close to Smackdown. Smackdown had about 10 ELITE performers while Raw only had about 3. What changes should have been made to make Raw more competitive with Smackdown? Moving Undertaker after a while? Moving Triple H to Smackdown in exchange? raw always seemed like the storytelling show, whereas Smackdown was mostly about the in-ring action. Your thoughts? Raw only had 3? 2003: Booker T, RVD, Kane, Chris Jericho, Goldberg, Triple H, Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels... 2004: Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit, Kane, Edge, Triple H, Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels.... 2005: John Cena, Kurt Angle, Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Ric Flair, Kane, Big Show, Chris Jericho.... Hardly.... |
|
|
|
Post by MKSavage on Apr 10, 2019 11:05:28 GMT -5
This was around the time I stopped watching wrestling, things were becoming a little too predictable and boring. A lot of the guys that I grew up with were retiring at this time so that probably had something to do with it. I would watch from time to time but it was never the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by keegandimitrijevic01 on Apr 10, 2019 12:37:51 GMT -5
Back then, it seemed like Raw wasn't even close to Smackdown. Smackdown had about 10 ELITE performers while Raw only had about 3. What changes should have been made to make Raw more competitive with Smackdown? Moving Undertaker after a while? Moving Triple H to Smackdown in exchange? raw always seemed like the storytelling show, whereas Smackdown was mostly about the in-ring action. Your thoughts? Raw only had 3? 2003: Booker T, RVD, Kane, Chris Jericho, Goldberg, Triple H, Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels... 2004: Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit, Kane, Edge, Triple H, Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels.... 2005: John Cena, Kurt Angle, Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Ric Flair, Kane, Big Show, Chris Jericho.... Hardly.... Yeah, I'm talking about 3 on a consistent basis. 2003: Goldberg was badly booked, Kane was badly booked and booked as a mid-carder, Jericho was booked as a mid carder, Ric was barely wrestling, Booker was booked as a mid carder outside of 'Mania XIX 2004: Jericho was again a mid-carder, Benoit was the Champion, but was still treated as a mid carder, and his storylines weren't promoted as the main event, Kane was booked a mid-carder, Edge was booked as a mid-carder, Flair was booked as a mid carder 2005: Kurt Angle was only on Raw for about 6 months. The rhythm is that the only guys that were consistently at the top of the card were Triple H, John Cena, and Shawn Michaels throughout the entire time. the rest of the guys you mentioned fluctuated between the mid and upper mid card |
|
|
|
Post by HandsomeHollywood on Apr 10, 2019 15:01:46 GMT -5
Raw only had 3? 2003: Booker T, RVD, Kane, Chris Jericho, Goldberg, Triple H, Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels... 2004: Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit, Kane, Edge, Triple H, Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels.... 2005: John Cena, Kurt Angle, Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Ric Flair, Kane, Big Show, Chris Jericho.... Hardly.... Yeah, I'm talking about 3 on a consistent basis. 2003: Goldberg was badly booked, Kane was badly booked and booked as a mid-carder, Jericho was booked as a mid carder, Ric was barely wrestling, Booker was booked as a mid carder outside of 'Mania XIX 2004: Jericho was again a mid-carder, Benoit was the Champion, but was still treated as a mid carder, and his storylines weren't promoted as the main event, Kane was booked a mid-carder, Edge was booked as a mid-carder, Flair was booked as a mid carder 2005: Kurt Angle was only on Raw for about 6 months. The rhythm is that the only guys that were consistently at the top of the card were Triple H, John Cena, and Shawn Michaels throughout the entire time. the rest of the guys you mentioned fluctuated between the mid and upper mid card Don't know if you can use bad booking to excuse talent entirely. Raw obviously had more than 3 top level talents, that is clear. Whether they were booked well is a different aspect entirely. I assume you're including Rey Mysterio as one of SmackDown's elites, but he was consistently in the low or mid card. I do agree SmackDown had better quality in terms of a show. If it wasn't for poor booking, Raw wouldn't have been that far behind. |
|
|
|
Post by keegandimitrijevic01 on Apr 10, 2019 15:11:41 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm talking about 3 on a consistent basis. 2003: Goldberg was badly booked, Kane was badly booked and booked as a mid-carder, Jericho was booked as a mid carder, Ric was barely wrestling, Booker was booked as a mid carder outside of 'Mania XIX 2004: Jericho was again a mid-carder, Benoit was the Champion, but was still treated as a mid carder, and his storylines weren't promoted as the main event, Kane was booked a mid-carder, Edge was booked as a mid-carder, Flair was booked as a mid carder 2005: Kurt Angle was only on Raw for about 6 months. The rhythm is that the only guys that were consistently at the top of the card were Triple H, John Cena, and Shawn Michaels throughout the entire time. the rest of the guys you mentioned fluctuated between the mid and upper mid card Don't know if you can use bad booking to excuse talent entirely. Raw obviously had more than 3 top level talents, that is clear. Whether they were booked well is a different aspect entirely. I assume you're including Rey Mysterio as one of SmackDown's elites, but he was consistently in the low or mid card. I do agree SmackDown had better quality in terms of a show. If it wasn't for poor booking, Raw wouldn't have been that far behind. I agree with that. I meant that Raw only pushed 2-3 guys always and didn't give many others an opportunity |
|
TheEvilDoink1987
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 22, 2010 21:37:52 GMT -5
Posts: 2,819
|
Post by TheEvilDoink1987 on Apr 11, 2019 23:02:50 GMT -5
Nostalgia can be a bastard. I remember being 16 years old in 2003 and feeling nostalgic for 1993 WWF at the time.
To be honest, the product in 2002-2003 wasn't impressive at all on the Raw side. Smackdown was killing it. They featured fast-paced action and had amazing matches every week while Raw felt like a chore to watch even with big names like Steiner and Goldberg debuting. It became clear that HHH was running the show. The sizzle just wasn't there which was a shame because I still think guys like RVD and Booker T deserved a run with the title. They were never more over.
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,953
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Apr 12, 2019 5:10:54 GMT -5
Don't know if you can use bad booking to excuse talent entirely. Raw obviously had more than 3 top level talents, that is clear. Whether they were booked well is a different aspect entirely. I assume you're including Rey Mysterio as one of SmackDown's elites, but he was consistently in the low or mid card. I do agree SmackDown had better quality in terms of a show. If it wasn't for poor booking, Raw wouldn't have been that far behind. I agree with that. I meant that Raw only pushed 2-3 guys always and didn't give many others an opportunity Sounds like you're changing what you originally said to now fit your opinion. Went from "10 elite performers" to "pushes". I still stand by what I put, but would like to invite you to justify why Smackdown had 10 compared to Raw's 3? I know I come across as triggered, I'll allow that notion, but I am just justifying what I said in all fair discussion. So saying Raw only pushed 2-3 guys always, means the same 2-3, which isn't true, even during Triple H's reign of terror. In 2003 you had (counting only main event pushes for the WHC and then WWE championship): Scott Steiner, Booker T, Kevin Nash, Shawn Michaels, Goldberg and Kane. In 2004 you had: Chris Benoit, Shawn Michaels, Randy Orton, Edge at least? In 2005 you had: Batista, John Cena, Chris Jericho, Christian, Kurt Angle, probably more. So that hardly matches up with what you're saying. Plus Smackdown, whilst a better show in 2003, probably was no different in terms of number of pushes/elite talent, but definitely came up with more fresh talent for the titles. |
|
|
|
Post by Kill Em' All on Apr 12, 2019 16:13:56 GMT -5
I think in 2002-2003 SmackDown was the better show, but Raw wasn't as bad as people say it was.
I think the WWE Product in 2004 was little rough. I did enjoy JBL's work as WWE Champion, Raw was the better show for solid period of time from 04-07. Then, in the finals years I preferred Raw.
|
|
|
|
Post by theoutlaw1999 on Apr 12, 2019 19:14:12 GMT -5
Sorry but there is no way Raw was a bad show back then. They were both perfect and I remember enjoying both shows each week.
Also people complain about HHH's reign of terror but lets look at the likes of Steiner, Goldberg and Nash. Goldberg was only signed for a year and made it known that he wasn't planning on staying and Steiner and Nash didn't stick around either so who else did that leave?
|
|
