Smackdown, the B-Show or the Better Show?

[Steve-O-Matt]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Y'know, I've been watching Raw and Smackdown and in recent memory I'd say Smackdown is a whole lot better. Let's take this weeks Raw and Smackdown for example:

Raw's highlights:

- Cena and Vickie fued
- Heyman's fake heart attack
- Ends with Punk looking like Cena and Ryback's bitch

Smackdown highlights:

- Survivor Series participators in matches
- Legitimate wrestler vs. wrestler fueds
- Ends with Sheamus making a statement to Show, but even though Show was hurt, he didn't look like a bitch

Now, I don't know about you, but Smackdown's formula hasn't been bad for a while and that most complaints to the WWE is mostly directed to stuff Raw orientated. Smackdown has been consistent and I mostly can't think of anything wrong with it, it actually has wrestling in it for crying out loud. I've always wanted Raw and Smackdown to be the same in levels of equality, but the WWE has always favoured Raw over it.

What do you guys think? Is Smackdown the B-show or the better show?

 

[hatehabsforever]

Smackdown is unquestionably the B show, and it's not even close. Sure, there may be the occasional week where Smackdown trumps RAW, although such instances are few and far between. But as a general rule of thumb, RAW is without a doubt the A show. Better talent, better story lines, and far more focus from the WWE brass and correspondingly better ratings. As a general rule, Smackdown is on life support and it doesn't appear that the WWE has any interest in attempting to make it better. Just come onto the forums on a typical Friday night. Crickets chirping in any LD which has been created, assuming anyone even bothered to create one. And this is the typical fan response across the board.

There's less of a discrepancy between Smackdown and Impact than there is between RAW and Smackdown, and frankly, that speaks volumes.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Smackdown is the B show. Raw has always been the flagship brand and the fact that it is makes some fans automatically view it in a better light by default. The fact that Smackdown is not live hurts it. You can DVR it to watch the next morning without worrying too much about missing something important. Raw is where most of the important moments on the television shows take place. The few exceptions have been things like Money In the Bank cash in's and title changes that took place on Smackdown, which have also been spoiled by results being posted. Many people who get the results spoiled do not bother watching. I never read the spoilers to avoid this myself, although they are available to read so people are GOING to read them. Some of which skip out on watching when they already know who won.

For a brief while about 4 or so years ago, Smackdown had a better roster and seemed to have become the A show. The Raw got the better hand the following draft and has been the A show again ever since. Raw entering its Supershow format and adding the third hour are also further proof that it remains the better show. I love the blue brand and my weekends are not complete without it, however Raw is without question the A show. Smackdown has better match quality while Raw destroys it in everything else. The red brand will likely always be superior.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Raw always gets better during the road to Wrestlemania. However, Smackdown has been the better show the past couple of years. In terms of storylines, sometimes simple works. I'll take two brutes in Show and Sheamus slugging it out over whatever is going on with Cena and AJ any day of the week. I don't think the third hour has helped any and sometimes just makes the show drag and become more boring. I like the wrestling I get on Smackdown and they have a decent storyline for the world title. I get the best of both. Can't say that about Raw.

 

[HBsam31]

I also think Smackdown is the B show, but that doesn't mean it isn't better at times. Obviously more time is put into Raw, and you can't underestimate the fact that Raw is live. Friday night is also not an ideal night for people to stay in and watch wrestling. My point with this is there are a lot more reasons why people would choose to watch Raw over Smackdown that have nothing to do with the actual product being put on tv. I don't think the third hour has helped Raw at all, and to be truthful sometimes it is refreshing to watch Smackdown. Raw is filled with AJ/Cena/Vickie stuff, and there seems to be a lot more talk. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes Smackdown seems like the better pure wrestling show. If I myself had to pick only one to watch it would be Raw, but I just wanted to argue the other side here because I don't think Smackdown is a drastically worse show at all.

 

[KKKKwe]

the only time i can say smackdown had a chance of being the "A" show was during the time of 2002-2005 when raw was competing against smackdown in brand war

Just remember it all started out with Ric Flair being GM of Raw while Vince was GM of Smackdown

Then you had Vince beat flair for all power of the WWE

This is where Vince hired Bischoff to be GM of Raw, While Stephanie Mcmahon was GM of Smackdown

I can write forever, but i will say after Eric Bischoff got fired on tv brand wars meant nothing

 

[AttitudeChild]

But as a general rule of thumb, RAW is without a doubt the A show. Better talent, better story lines, and far more focus from the WWE brass and correspondingly better ratings. .

Besides the last part about the ratings, everything you said was incorrect.

Better Talent There is no more brand split dude. Ever superstar now competes on both shows. The only superstars who are Raw exclusive at the moment Cena & Brad Maddox. Ziggler, Eve, Miz, Kofi, Vicki they all compete on SmackDown on a regular basis. Orton, Berrate, PTP, Mysterio, Sheamus all compete on Raw. I dont understand how you see Raws roster as better when the two are one in the same.

Better Storylines 90% of ALL the storylines on Raw are SmackDown storylines. The only 2 stories that Raw has are Punk vs Ryback and the Cena/AJ scandal. Again, your point is incorrect.

More Focus From WWE Brass This ones just stupid. How in the world can you or any of us know the amount of focus WWE puts into their shows. This argument has 0 proof to it.

SmackDown has been the better show for years now, and the only people don't think so are the Raw Fanboys.

 

[Aquaman6686]

From 2002-2010, SmackDown was consistently the better show in terms of storylines and wrestling, probably 70% of the time. But now it's just RAW-lite. The death of the brand extension is killing SmackDown, because the entire show just feels like a watered-down rehash of whatever happened on Monday.

 

[punchline]

SmackDown has been the better show for years now, and the only people don't think so are the Raw Fanboys.

This is GOLDEN! So now it's not just TNA and WWE fanboys going at it, but there's a civil war between RAW and Smackdown fanboys as well? Guess the brand split isn't truly over...

 

[legendkiller1979]

Smackdown is so boring. It's clear the WWE thinks it's the B show because they don't put near the effort into it as they do Raw. It's the same show every single week. Someone will come out and talk. That person will get interrupted and a brawl will ensue. This leads to two more guys coming out and a main event tag team match being set up. The match is either with guys nobody cares about or a completely random pairing. If you've seen one episiode of Smackdown in the last couple of years, you've seen them all.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I also think Smackdown is the B show, but that doesn't mean it isn't better at times.

True. There are weeks the writing and planning on Smackdown are put together so slickly that the whole episode has a flow that Raw often lacks, given the amount of plot-building and star-building the Monday show needs to do. With Raw, the flow sometimes ebbs as one of the big stars takes to the microphone or has a backstage segment to put across. It's often: "Hey, it's time to stop the action and listen to Punk talk for awhile." Not that there's anything wrong with that; it's the way Raw is formulated, but it sometimes makes the show "choppy" and prevents the program from coming across as a cohesive whole.

Not that Smackdown doesn't occasionally fall into the same trap. Some weeks, it presents as a bunch of matches and in-ring talking spots tossed together to make a 2-hour program. But Smackdown, as a rule, is less star-oriented and more attuned to providing us with wrestling matches. When Randy Orton does talk, it's more brief and to the point than when Punk or Cena do it. When Sheamus speaks, he doesn't philosophize; he trumpets what he's going to do in a few short sentences......then goes out and does it.

Raw will always be the main show because the biggest jolts in plotline occur there and the biggest stars make the biggest impact, but when Smackdown is on the money, it's sometimes the superior show.

 

[theBec2101]

I would have to give the edge to Raw but let’s face it they both could do a hell of a lot better. One does good the other doesn’t. One is great one week horrible the next. Problem is one has a lot of stories and segments and the other has none. So one has good segments and one doesn’t. But one has too many and the other as too few. So it’s like a pick your poison type of thing. But to say one is way better than the other I wouldn’t but Raw I think gets the slight edge.

 

[Artemis Paradox]

Smackdown is easily the B-show. It gets over RAW on occasional weeks, but there isn't as much effort put into it as RAW. The better angles, promos, and matches are on RAW, and there really isn't much to add to that. RAW has been the flagship show over SD for as long as I can remember, and that probably won't change.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

Raw is the flagship show. It was the first one. It was the one that was embroiled in the Monday Night Wars against Nitro. Without it there would be no Smackdown.

However, for a time Smackdown was the better of the two shows. It wasn't even close.
It was sad how SD was kicking Raw's ass in terms of entertainment value. The storylines were better, the talent made better use of their tv time by delivering better matches, even though they were supposedly 'less talented' than Raw talent. I 'd skim through Raw but would never dream of missing Smackdown. Performers would do great things on SD only to go to Raw struggle and be released. It seems for some reason WWE just hated it when SD was being enjoyed and didn't want that talent roster to continue on SD to win over the crowd, which is just so mind blowing to me.

Today both shows are struggling but I have to admit that Raw was the first show and WWE management seem to consider it their A show, even though SD clearly proved otherwise most of the time.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

Obviously, it is the B show, but I always say this, If you want entertainment, then watch Raw.. But if you want wrestling, watch Smackdown..

Smackdown always produces quality matches and has done over the past 10 years.. On Raw they always like to continue storylines with in-ring segments however Smackdown lets them fight, e.g. Orton and Christian put on some great matches a couple of years ago..

 

[WallsofZakku]

Raw is the A show when compared to SmackDown.
though back in 2003-2005 SmackDown in my opinion was the A show having great athletes like Brock Lesnar, Kurt Angle, Undertaker, Eddie Guerrero, The Cruiserweight division and provided great weekly episodes and good PPV's. but now due to lack of roster depth in todays WWE and all the effort is put into Raw, SmackDown will forever remain the B-show.