Smackdown Sucks Without Christian...

[TWJC: The Beginning]

When a guy gets booed in his own hometown (and hes supposed to be a face) its a clear indication that hes getting stale. And no, no matter how you want to phrase it, wrestling is nothing like soda. I know you get off on imagining that you know more about business here than anybody else but certain businesses run differently. If you simply dont get it then you dont. Your argument for everything is that WWE is right because they're businessmen when Vince will be the first guy to tell you hes made some bad business decisions.


I could get Subway over, and I got about as 1/4 of the charisma that The Miz has. Nobody is saying that the character can rely solely on wins to get themselves over, but wins/loses are of pivotal importance to certain situations. If Cena hadnt won as any times as he did he wouldnt be as credible of a superstar as he is now.

Hotshotting the title isnt all that bad. What made Christian/Orton so interesting was that both were able to hold the title. Henry doesnt need to win the title, I've never made that argument, but he needs a credible heel to feud with. And I'm sure after Henry's gone someone else will come and take the title off of Orton.


Its not one person's opinion. A lot of WWE fans could care less for SD. There was a time when that brand was as good as RAW and now people could care less. Ratings matter, and thats something SD needs improvement on. Its needs to capture more attention.


who the fuck is saying that just because I like somebody WWE needs to do something. I swear every one of your excuses concludes to bashing someone because they have a personal opinion, no matter how generalized it is. Are you a WWE spokesperson? Because if you arent I dont think they appreciate you claiming that they think just like you do.

Let's not even get started on Cena. I think Cena gets booed because people don't like the good guy babyface, either way, everyone makes noise.

I don't get off thinking I know more about business. I'm a business student so it's just how I think normally...sorry. Yes, they do make bad business decisions at time, but I can always see the logic behind what they were trying to do. The WWE isn't different than Coke. Yes, there are some differences, obviously one is media, the other soda, but at it's core, both are trying to push products.

I'm not saying wins and losses aren't important, I'm saying they aren't as important as the character. A guy who is over will always have a job. Someone who wins a lot isn't always over.

So we basicaly agree on Henry.

Smackdown will NEVER have as high of ratings as Raw. Smackdown is on an inferior channel at an inferior time and doesn't have the name recognition of Raw. WWE likely makes a lot more in ad rev from Raw than Smackdown so Raw is where most of the more over main eventers are and where more of the more over midcarders are. It's a business decision. Put more effort into something that doesn't make as much money or use it to build guys?

Think of it like this. If you have a lot of money and you have 2 investment choices. One you KNOW will make you a lot of money and the other one can if you groom it right. You put more money into the sure thing and put some in the other. That's what they're doing. You have a few big names on SD but you're mostly trying to grow superstars into more valuable assets. On Raw, everyone there is pretty valuable and pretty over so you give them a vehicle where they can make you the most money. Every draft if you have a midcarder you want to try as a main eventer, he's sent to Smackdown, if a midcard Smackdown guy has proven himself, he goes to Raw.

Smackdown and Raw are not equal and they shouldn't be. You should PROMOTE them as such, but when you think about it, it makes no sense for the WWE to put as many over wrestlers on Smackdown. You still want to create compelling storylines, but it's not the A show. You could argue that Smackdown was once the better show, and in my opinion it was. When they had the Smackdown 6, but they never had higher ratings or interest. Smackdown is now on a worse network at a worse time. So even though you promote them as equals, you put most of your money makers on Raw.

I don't think WWE thinks just like I do, like I said, I think they're smarter than me. My point is that WWE does things based on what they feel will make the most money.

 

[H33LTurn]

Let's not even get started on Cena. I think Cena gets booed because people don't like the good guy babyface, either way, everyone makes noise.

Exactly, that what you think. Everybody who dislikes him knows why they dislike him.

I don't get off thinking I know more about business. I'm a business student so it's just how I think normally...sorry. Yes, they do make bad business decisions at time, but I can always see the logic behind what they were trying to do. The WWE isn't different than Coke. Yes, there are some differences, obviously one is media, the other soda, but at it's core, both are trying to push products.

You need to pay more attention in class if you honestly thing the wrestling business is as simple as running a soda company. Every company is trying to push a product or service., thats the whole point of having a company. But its asinine to say that WWE operates on the same basis as Pepsi.

I'm not saying wins and losses aren't important, I'm saying they aren't as important as the character. A guy who is over will always have a job. Someone who wins a lot isn't always over.

Nobody is saying the wins and loses are as important as charcter but they're important. Thats the point.

Smackdown will NEVER have as high of ratings as Raw. Smackdown is on an inferior channel at an inferior time and doesn't have the name recognition of Raw. WWE likely makes a lot more in ad rev from Raw than Smackdown so Raw is where most of the more over main eventers are and where more of the more over midcarders are. It's a business decision. Put more effort into something that doesn't make as much money or use it to build guys?

You need to put effort into something in order to build guys. If WWE just gave up on SD then they wouldnt be able to build stars because nobody would care about what they did on SD.

Think of it like this. If you have a lot of money and you have 2 investment choices. One you KNOW will make you a lot of money and the other one can if you groom it right. You put more money into the sure thing and put some in the other. That's what they're doing. You have a few big names on SD but you're mostly trying to grow superstars into more valuable assets. On Raw, everyone there is pretty valuable and pretty over so you give them a vehicle where they can make you the most money. Every draft if you have a midcarder you want to try as a main eventer, he's sent to Smackdown, if a midcard Smackdown guy has proven himself, he goes to Raw.

I undertsand that Smackdown is for building guys but WWE has an obligation to its performers, sponsors and the network they're on to make the best out of their on air time. Thats why WWE does its best to go all out on NXT, SUperstars, and SD regardless of how little notoriety they have. Just because RAW is big doesnt mean that the other brands are obsolete.

Smackdown and Raw are not equal and they shouldn't be. You should PROMOTE them as such, but when you think about it, it makes no sense for the WWE to put as many over wrestlers on Smackdown. You still want to create compelling storylines, but it's not the A show. You could argue that Smackdown was once the better show, and in my opinion it was. When they had the Smackdown 6, but they never had higher ratings or interest. Smackdown is now on a worse network at a worse time. So even though you promote them as equals, you put most of your money makers on Raw.

The stuff in bold is my point. You just proved it.

I don't think WWE thinks just like I do, like I said, I think they're smarter than me. My point is that WWE does things based on what they feel will make the most money.

Ratings = money.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Exactly, that what you think. Everybody who dislikes him knows why they dislike him.

You need to pay more attention in class if you honestly thing the wrestling business is as simple as running a soda company. Every company is trying to push a product or service., thats the whole point of having a company. But its asinine to say that WWE operates on the same basis as Pepsi.

Nobody is saying the wins and loses are as important as charcter but they're important. Thats the point.



You need to put effort into something in order to build guys. If WWE just gave up on SD then they wouldnt be able to build stars because nobody would care about what they did on SD.

I undertsand that Smackdown is for building guys but WWE has an obligation to its performers, sponsors and the network they're on to make the best out of their on air time. Thats why WWE does its best to go all out on NXT, SUperstars, and SD regardless of how little notoriety they have. Just because RAW is big doesnt mean that the other brands are obsolete.


The stuff in bold is my point. You just proved it.


Ratings = money.

No, here's what I think. I think I see people smiling when the boo him and chant against him. I see everyone in the arena making noise. I see his segment ratings being really high. So either everyone who boos him likes to boo him, or the people who legitimately dislike him don't make up a big enough portion of the audience to matter. This isn't me just pulling something out of my ass, those are actually the only 2 options. If more people actually hated him, they wouldn't watch. I hate Real Housewives of New Jersey, I don't watch it.

It's asinine to say that running coke is "simple". I'm not saying they run the exact same way. I'm saying they're both businesses and they both push a product. How do you not get this? I'm not saying "they're exactly the same". I'm saying, the WWE treats their guys like any other company treats products. You push your number 1 most and also try to introduce other products. What's your business background?

So we agree then. Wins and losses are somewhat important. Sometimes a loss can get a character more over (CM Punk at Summerslam) and sometimes a win can get a character more over (Randy Orton vs Foley). However, the main thing is the character itself being a character people care about.

I'm not saying they're obsolete, I'm saying they are trying their best on SD, but your biggest draws are on Raw.

If you're point is that Smackdown should create compelling stories to succeed then yes we agree on that too. You said "smackdown used to be raw's equal" which could mean a lot of things. If you mean that subjectively their stories are as entertaining then yea, it has been and many think it is now. From an objective, hard numbers standpoint, no, it never has been and never should be.

Yes, Ratings=ad rev. However, if you were to put a bunch of stars on Smackdown and Smackdown's ratings go up but Raw's suffer, then you lose money. You get more money from Smackdown, but less from Raw, and the money lost from Raw is more than the money gained from Smackdown because USA at 8 (central) on Mondays has more potential than SciFi on Fridays at 7 (central).

You have to look at the big picture. It's called economic profit. It means that what you're doing > all other possible decisions, not just "Smackdown made more money than before so we made money".

All I was saying with Smackdown is that it may be subjectively more entertaining than Raw, and many think it is now. However, to ever think Smackdown should be pushed by the company (as in more stars) to try to get ratings as high as Raw is a bad idea.

 

[H33LTurn]

No, here's what I think. I think I see people smiling when the boo him and chant against him. I see everyone in the arena making noise. I see his segment ratings being really high. So either everyone who boos him likes to boo him, or the people who legitimately dislike him don't make up a big enough portion of the audience to matter. This isn't me just pulling something out of my ass, those are actually the only 2 options. If more people actually hated him, they wouldn't watch. I hate Real Housewives of New Jersey, I don't watch it.

How would you know what his segment ratings are? You dont work for WWE, get that fantasy out of your head. Think back to school, when a kid would make fun of another kid. The bully usually smiles doesnt he, that doesnt mean he has any care in the world for the person he's harassing. People already have stopped watching because of him. Dedicated fans wont stop watching because of one guy, thats just plain fucking stupid to give up on something you love because of one guy. That doesnt change the fact that hes stale.

It's asinine to say that running coke is "simple". I'm not saying they run the exact same way. I'm saying they're both businesses and they both push a product. How do you not get this? I'm not saying "they're exactly the same". I'm saying, the WWE treats their guys like any other company treats products. You push your number 1 most and also try to introduce other products. What's your business background?

I dont have one, and dont need one. I think I can pass judgement on something without needing a degree. A lot of people here make valid points, and I doubt any of them majored in marketing. Coke looks up what flavor people like, makes a soda from that flavor, then makes a couple bad commercials. WWE has to make something out of the 100 something wrestlers they have, most of which will screw up. They literally spend months and years trying something with someone who could end up being a complete disaster. One soda wont kill Coke's rep, but one guy can kill WWE's rep (ex- Benoit.).

I'm not saying they're obsolete, I'm saying they are trying their best on SD, but your biggest draws are on Raw.

I never disputed that.

If you're point is that Smackdown should create compelling stories to succeed then yes we agree on that too. You said "smackdown used to be raw's equal" which could mean a lot of things. If you mean that subjectively their stories are as entertaining then yea, it has been and many think it is now. From an objective, hard numbers standpoint, no, it never has been and never should be.

I'm saying there was a time when even cruiserweights were big. Everybody was doing something no matter how minimal of a role they played. That makes it so much more easier to build someone up than putting them in random matches and hoping the crowd takes a liking to them.
Yes, Ratings=ad rev. However, if you were to put a bunch of stars on Smackdown and Smackdown's ratings go up but Raw's suffer, then you lose money. You get more money from Smackdown, but less from Raw, and the money lost from Raw is more than the money gained from Smackdown because USA at 8 (central) on Mondays has more potential than SciFi on Fridays at 7 (central).

All I was saying with Smackdown is that it may be subjectively more entertaining than Raw, and many think it is now. However, to ever think Smackdown should be pushed by the company (as in more stars) to try to get ratings as high as Raw is a bad idea.

I dont think SD needs that type of push, but there are just certain things that are necessary to keep the product relevant. You cant have a face as champion for 10 consecutive years. There needs to be a time where someone can actually step up and take the title from them. I dont know how we got this far from my initial statement that a loss to Orton could hurt Henry.

 

[xoxo French Kiss xoxo]

Ill assume it was one of WWE's tests to see what the ratings for the show would be without him.

Christian has been at his best these past few months, and Rather than that garbage 20 man over the top battle royal, I would have rather seen Henry, Sheamus, Christian and Barret in singles action vs each other to determine a #1 contender.

Christian will probably be involved in a feud with Sheamus in the coming months so Sheamus can continue his Face Turn Push.

 

[Alittude]

He didn't get that over. Winning the belt didn't make him the top heel. Yea, being in the main feud put him up there, but if he were a shitty heel it wouldn't have worked. If he needs the "full hype machine" behind him then he's not that good. Like I've said a million times. Pushes don't get you over, you get over and get a push, then you get more over, then they push you some more. How many guys have held the title or gotten big wins and it doen't get them more over than before? Shelton Benjamin, Jericho, Swagger? Just because you get huge wins and wins titles doesn't mean you suddenly become a huge star.

No, if he has a lengthy run with the title but no one gives a shit he WON'T be more over. That's not how it fucking works. If that was the case then wouldn't the WWE just put the strap on someone new for 6 months every 6 months? I mean, if clean wins and a long title reign was all it took then their job would be a lot easier. That's just not how it works. The character comes first.

Having the title didn't elevate Christian. Being a really good chickenshit heel against Randy Orton did. The fans don't think "he has the belt, he's now better than he was before" they might conciously, but the real reason they care about a guy is the character. The character is good, people think "wow I like this guy" (even if they're booing him, it's a positive reaction in the brain), then he's in a lengthy title feud and it stamps it in there that he's a top guy. If you just give a guy that people aren't all that into a long title reign then the thought process becomes "why is this guy champ?"

I can't keep going with you because you just come up with the same old shit without reading other posts properly. The title gave Christian a a lot more heat because of the way he won it. When he lifted it up at MITB it got a very loud crowd reaction. After that he was more over with the belt. It wasn't from the belt alone it was him with it but it did get him more over. Why are you saying if he has a lengthy run with the title but no one gives a shit? People DO give a shit. That makes your whole point invalid. You think Orton and Cena have always been as over as they are now. They've been in the main event for years and years holding the title many many times. Christian hasn't been in the main event for long at all and you're complaining he shouldn't get as much time as Cena and Orton because he isn't as over as them.

It seems that you're just a Christian hater now and you don't want him to have the title because he isn't as over but you don't want to give him a chance to become as over. So whoever the WWE chooses to push down our throats you'll say they're the best. Saying the title doesn't get you more heat is stupid as well. It can't get you heat alone but if you work with it in the right situation it definitely can. Alberto Del Rio went from getting minimal crowd reactions usually to a lot of heat form just winning the belt.

I really don't want to keep going because you just make up shit to fit your own points even though you show clear bias in your arguments.

 

[JBK2008]

Seriously one week without Christian is okay. I'm a HUGE Captain Charisma fan and even thought it sucked not seeing the top heel on the show, the show itself was pretty good and everyone else on the Blue Brand got some on air time. The feud couldn't go on forever as the last match they had you could tell the fans were beginning to tire of it. Orton is going to remain champion for a while, but in the mean time, Christian can go face Bryan or another mid carder and help bring them up to the main event scene.

 

[gamma2008]

I do have to admit I hate orton as a face, his personality, his tone of voice, it all lends to an arrogant heel, imo. But to say Christian's the only one capable of working at a main event level on that roster? Daniel Bryan is awesome, Sheamus has had multiple title reigns that prove his excellence in the ring and on the mic, Wade Barret has some momentum from Summerslam to enter a great feud with Danielson, Sin Cara's only real obstacle assuming he stays clean is that he needs to learn English enough to work better with others and he'll be main event caliber too. Cody Rhodes is a great performer with a bright future. Not to mention the World's Strongest Man is on a freakin rampage that I'm loving.

I mean, in all honesty? I think the Smackdown card has better overall main event caliber card than Raw right now. None on the level of Cena or the Miz, imo, but overall a bigger main event caliber card.

 

[Alittude]

I'm not saying he's the only one that can work at a main event level I'm saying without the him the show is missing something big personality wise. Daniel Bryan is awesome but he still needs to develop and his personality isn't overly interesting at this stage as they need to keep building him. I like Sheamus but I have to disagree that he's excellent on the mic. I think he's pretty horrible actually as he doesn't show the confidence or dominance that his character portrays. That Irish story he told a few weeks ago was strange and just seemed stupid as he didn't pull it off at all. I feek Mark Henry is the same on the mic he can't pull it off at all. Rhodes is good and I'm enjoying him and looking forward to when he main events.

They have a decent main event scene but without Christian there is a certain dullness when it comes to promos and backstage segments as no one has the personality that he does in my opinion.

 

[Dutchboy241]

It doesn't suck without him, but it's not better. They got more than enough talent on the roster to be entertaining. We saw "The Legacy reunion", Gabriel getting a push, a great ADR and Bryan match, a standard diva's match (could be worse), the IC got defended and a battle royal. All of that was awesome. Christian makes Smackdown better but it's not bad without him.

Plus it's hard to judge the show when he's been gone only a week. If they sell him being injured from Summerslam for the next few weeks then we can judge. I've seen guys take lesser beatings and not shown up for a while. I'm pretty sure Christian will be back for the next show but the longest time I see him gone is the Smackdown after NOC. If he does stay away for the next few weeks (which I doubt) then we can judge how the show has been since he's been gone.

 

[SteelRevenge]

Normally I don`t respond to posts like this bc they have mark written all over them, however I did miss C so I`ll comment.

Yes C is a great superstar who`s earned his stripes and is fresh in the way it someone different yet creditable in the title pc. All good.

SD was still pretty good last week though, and his missing the show was more to sell the match he had then purely taken off without reason. Rhodes was taken off about a month ago and was booked for a IC match that delivered no explanation. comparatively, this is really no big deal.

Again on the whole the show was good. Although I found the battle royal to be lack luster with a lot of crap performers out lasting better talent. It still made the whole look at henry thing pass over so. . . . . that and all the time they spend un axess, blah!

So yeah, everything after the delrio&bryan match(Diva`s match for some) was pretty weak, but overall the show before that was good and I expect C to return with a gripe about his rematch clause. Plus they are in Canada!