Smackdown vs RAW: 2003

[CM Steel]

Hopefully after this years Wrestlemania the WWE will be upon another WWE draft. It will be ten years to the date that the WWE has debuted the draft in the WWE.

Back in 2003 there was no draft that year. And both RAW & Smackdown were doing their own things on there reapectable brands. On RAW they had Evolution run shot every Monday night. While feuding with the likes of Shawn Michaels and then Bill Goldberg. And on Smackdown Brock Lesnar & Kurt Angle carried the brand with a year long feud against each other. The Undertaker and the Big Show would interact some of the time going after the WWE championship no matter who it was on.

And then in 2004, we had another draft involving the brands. Brock Lesnar had left the WWE right after Wrestlemania 20 in NYC.

So which brand was the brand to watch in 2003 alone? RAW or Smackdown??

 

[Khalifa]

Definately a hard choice. Raw had some lackluster ppv's and had to use had beens to try and help them out (Goldberg and Kevin Nash). They didn't have Chris Benoit at this time but they had Christian, Chris Jericho and RVD to help there mid title hopes. Kane was also had that famous heel turn and removal of his mask. Smackdown had some great matches in Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar. Eddie and Chris were putting on some amazing matches and ofcourse they had Undertaker.

Despite how good some of the matches that Smackdown had, I am still going to side with Raw. HHH was the man, evolution was amazing and it was an enjoyable event from top of the card to the bottom of the card. The case wasn't the same for Smackdown as everyone would just watch Chris/Eddie and the main event.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

This is a joke, right?

You had Lesnar, Benoit, and Angle having great match after great match. You had a heel Cena who was getting popular by the minute and you still had Eddie Guerrero.

On the other side, you had the One Man WCW Wrecking Crew in HHH. His feuds with Steiner, Nash, and Goldberg all sucked. The only enjoyable thing I got out of Raw in 2003 was Kane unmasking and they even managed to fuck that up which was Raw's theme in 2003.

 

[ApexPredatoRKO730]

Raw:
the year started off decent, the formation of Evolution, the mediocre feud between HHH and Steiner, and the must see heel side of The Rock. We saw the return of Stone Cold, Goldberg, Kane unmasking and having a tremendous heel turn. Evolution pushed 2 future stars. The classic Austin/Bischoff Co-GM rivalry. So, Raw in 2003 was filled with the must see rivalries and confrontations.

SmackDown:
Team Angle. "The Real" Brock Lesnar. Los Guerreros. John Cena as a rising star. Smackdown put on some of the greatest matches and moments. The original ring implosion from Lesnar and Big Show, the Lesnar/Angle Iron Man match. And also some good rivalries, Vince/Stephanie, Lesnar/Angle, Lesnar/Taker. Some of the late great Eddie Guerrero's funniest moments. The "unmentionable" Chris Benoit was a top contender and an outstanding performer. John Cena made his name in the ring with guys like Lesnar, Taker, Eddie, and Big Show. Leading to his huge face turn in BUFFALO, NY. Smackdown had amazing matches and rivalries.

Overall, 2003 would've been the best year to do the RAW SuperShow

 

[TheHorndogSays]

Overall, 2003 would've been the best year to do the RAW SuperShow

I'm not disagreeing with the majority of your post, just your very last comment here. This has more to do with my uncertainty why so many feel the brand split was a bad idea. Not sure if that was the point you were trying to get across but I see a supershow as a way to do without the Brand-split. With that said, I've always said John Cena would have NEVER become a star had the brand split never happened. He is a pure example of why the brand split was a success. If it wasn't for the brand split there is NO way a rapper would have been featured instead of Rock, Austin, Angle, Lesnar, Guerrero, Evolution, etc.

 

[Aquaman6686]

RAW had superior storylines that year, but SmackDown had the better in-ring product and put on better PPVs. I give it to SmackDown, but not by much.

 

[Mr. HD]

It's hard to choose honestly. RAW had the more interesting stories, but SmackDown by far had the better wrestling matches, no doubt about it.

RAW in 2003 had HBK in the prime of his comeback, Triple H as THE Man, Austin and Bischoff as Co-GMs, Goldberg of course, the beginning of Evolution, Kane's freakish and psychotic heel turn, the divas division was good, the tag team division was great and they had a pretty damn good mid card with RVD, Jericho, Orton, Batista, Christian, Booker and Goldust picking up the slack. RAW was definitely entertaining in 2003.

BUT, SmackDown did have an edge over RAW in terms of wrestling matches. Benoit and Angle's classic at the Royal Rumble, the great WWE Championship match at WrestleMania, an underrated Ladder match for the tag titles at Judgment Day with Team Angle and Eddie & Tajiri, Cena vs Undertaker, Lesnar vs Angle, Benoit vs Guerrero just to name a few great ppv matches. Hands down, SmackDown had some great wrestling matches and some serious talent to put on those wrestling matches. Guys like Cena who was gaining popularity, Eddie had a great run with the US Title, Lesnar went from face to vicious heel, etc.

All that being said, I gotta go with RAW on this one. And what really did it for me is the Austin/Bischoff feud that culminated in that amazing Survivor Series Elimination match. Their feud was pretty damn good and I feel like it's trying to be re-done with Long and Laurinatis. Austin and Bischoff's feud was definitely must see TV nearly every week. The build, the match, the superstars in the match, the moment, the commentary, Austin's speech afterwards. It was definitely something I won't forget. RAW gave me moments I don't think I'll forget. I going with them. I understand about great wrestling and all that, but RAW had the perfect balance of great entertainment, and good matches to go with it.

 

[pepentorresHHH]

Like everyone has already said Raw had the entertainment aspect of 2003 but Smackdown had the wrestling aspect.
on one side you had Triple H as the man carrying Raw, probably the WWE, Evolution, Stone Cold retirement, the rock´s heel turn, Goldberg, great mid card, great tag team division, gm vs gm, shawn michaels in a full time schedule.
Smackdown had brock/angle, vince Hogan, the rise of john cena, the undertaker as the american bad ass, a fantastic resurgence of the us title.....
but i gotta give the edge to RAW, maybe the matches werent as good, but they were great and lets be honest if we all only wanted wrestling ROH would be the number one company, so im picking Raw

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

but i gotta give the edge to RAW, maybe the matches werent as good, but they were great and lets be honest if we all only wanted wrestling ROH would be the number one company, so im picking Raw

Of course the diffrence with ROH and Smackdown! is that Smackdown! also had some good stories. The Angle/Lesnar saga worked really well and culminated into a 11 month feud. It was exciting a mix of heel/face turns by both guys, with guys like Vince, Heyman, Stephanie, Team Angle, The Big Show, and even a one legged guy. In the end it paid off, Angle kind of won the rivalry at Survivor Series but elevating Cena and Benoit in the process.

Other good stories from Smackdown! probably involves Cena's feud with Taker, Eddie Guerrero's Lie Cheat Steal Gimmick, even A-Train looked good in the show.

So yeah Smackdown! had great wrestling but its not like it didn't have great rivalries and stories either.

RAW in 2003 was horribly mismanaged, and yes it had plenty to do with Triple H. Not that he had backstage politics but he had some really boring feuds. The fact that the most interesting one was with Booker T and only lasted for a month while Goldberg, Nash, and Steiner were sub par rivalries is just baffling.

Then we have Jericho, a guy that should be the #2 heel having feuds with the top guys and not Trish Stratus or Lita. He should have a longer feud with HBK after WMXIX ... why did they pull the plug on that is beyond me.

So between RAW or Smackdown! ... I would go for Smackdown! it was just more logical and streamlined product. RAW had so much talent but didn't use them well.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Raw. Smackdown was always inferior to Raw. Smackdown was ok but for me it was Raw which had HHH, Goldberg, Kevin Nash, Randy Orton, Batista, Kane, Shawn Michaels, Chris Jericho etc. RAW was filled with stars whereas Smackdown was filled with newbies. Only guys who kept me intrested in Smackdown were Kurt Angle, Benoit, Brock Lesnar and Undertaker (During his Big Evil gimmick). I enjoyed HHHs long title reigns. RAWs mid-card was solid too with the likes of Rob Van Dam, Christian,etc.

 

[darbare]

Not gonna lie, these were exceptional times back then...SmackDown always had the matches hands down...from top to bottom both brands were exceptional...you had a rising star in Cena..Lesnar who was putting on clinics with Taker & Angle...Big Show was pretty relevant...Benoits potential was finally being realized...it had the greatest SmackDown roster of any year...but when I think back at that year it goes to Raw...it was must see tv every monday at 10/11 pm because you knew some shit was going down...Kanes unmasking...Evolution beatdowns...hell anything with Kane after a while...Rock and Austins last feud...Goldbergs debut...they had the big name stars and all the right people at the right time...all the way down to their midcard featuring Regal, Booker T, RVD....guys who would be main eventers in todays WWE because talent is so thin..RAW was just special that year

 

[Steve0904]

Surprised to see a lot of people picking RAW honestly. I think Smackdown wins hands down. Rock-Stone Cold was great for one last time, but Austin was limited obviously. Austin-Bischoff was great as was Kane unmasking and his feud with Shane, and the mid card matches weren't bad at all, plus you had the return of HBK, but HHH honestly killed it for me. I like HHH don't get me wrong, but on RAW in 2003, his feuds with Steiner, Goldberg, and Nash were lackluster. Not to mention they were all his old buddies and you knew HHH would win with help from Evolution most of the time. I get that HHH was a heel, but it got very old very fast watching Evolution save his ass, to me and you knew nobody else on the show was going over the guy for any length of time.

I loved Smackdown in 2003 though. Lesnar-Angle feud was great. Chris Benoit *gasp* was very relevant. Cena-Taker was fantastic, and it was also back when Cena was "cool." Loved watching Eddie (with Chavo sometimes). Smackdown had some great cruiserweights as well. I also believe (correct me if I'm wrong please) that Edge and Mysterio tagged for a little while which I can remember liking a lot. They had great in ring chemistry. Paul Heyman was a great addition to the show as well.

I think if I had to pick one reason why I liked Smackdown more it was probably John Cena and the main reason I disliked RAW (I still loved it) was probably HHH.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

Also what I like to point out is that Smackdown! actually felt fresh in the kind of feuds and storyline they were doing. You had Cena, Mysterio, Lesnar, Angle, The Undertkaer, Benoit, Guerrero, Big Show, Benjamin, Haas, Tajiri, and even Matt Hardy.

Most of these guys were getting their first big change to become relevant in the brand and really helped make Smackdown! feel fresh and new week after week.

I am not saying RAW didn't have fresh face but it seemed like the older guys dominated the brand while guys like Jericho, Booker T, and RVD were totally misused at that period. Some might argue about Orton or Batista but they were injured most of the year so they were a non-factor in 2003 (in the case of Batista not until late 2004).

As I said before: In the end of 2003, Cena and Benoit were made to be awesome while they were on SD, Guerrero was about to breakthrough the main event. By the end of 2004, Christian and Jericho were feuding with women on RAW and no one but Triple H's Evolution buddies were relevant by year's end.

Smackdown's only black eye was Hardcore Holly getting a push.

Guess who wins there.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Like everyone has already said Raw had the entertainment aspect of 2003 but Smackdown had the wrestling aspect.
on one side you had Triple H as the man carrying Raw, probably the WWE,

Quite a disaster that was.

Evolution,

Got boring after a while.

Stone Cold retirement,

You mean where he retired and came back a month later then got "fired" at Survivor Series and came back a month later.

Goldberg,

They fucked him up so bad it was unbelievable. Look at Goldberg at WCW and what they did to him when he went to the WWE.

great mid card,

Meh.

great tag team division,

gm vs gm, shawn michaels in a full time schedule.

Meh.

Smackdown had brock/angle, vince Hogan, the rise of john cena, the undertaker as the american bad ass, a fantastic resurgence of the us title.....
but i gotta give the edge to RAW, maybe the matches werent as good, but they were great and lets be honest if we all only wanted wrestling ROH would be the number one company, so im picking Raw

There were great matches on Raw? Unheard of. I could give you Lesnar vs. Benoit, Angle vs. Benoit, Guerrero vs. Benoit, and even Big Show was motivated for a period. All I saw from Raw was fail after fail.

 

[rocksaviour]

For me it would be RAW.

For that year in between two years where SD! was in my opinion better, I enjoyed RAW due to the roster of Evolution, Booker T, Goldberg, Micheals, Jericho and Christian. Both shows had I would say one very good single brand PPV each in Vengeance (SD!) and Unforgiven (RAW). There seemed to be bigger stuff going on the RAW roster with the return of the IC title, GM battles and the fact Trish was there

Matches that stand out for me would be Team Bischoff vs. Team Austin (Survivor Series), Micheals vs. Orton (Unforgiven) and Micheals vs. Jericho (Mania).

To me though like I said RAW was better in 2003 and SD! was better in 2002 and 2004.

 

[P. Nut Butters]

I just got through watching all of the 2003 PPVs and old VHS tapes from that timeframe.
Back then, I would've told you right off the bat that RAW was the better show in my opinion. Now, looking back almost 10 years later, I'm of the opinion that SmackDown! was definitively better than RAW for the year.

I hated the lead-out of the SmackDown show in 2002. The show just wasn't doing it for me, so RAW still wins the first at least two months of 2003 in my book. The show (except for Scott Steiner) was great. It's painful to watch how badly Steiner sunk in WWE.

Somewhere around WrestleMania XIX, SmackDown started creeping on up, The wrestling on the show was better. John Cena (not a fan of his current character... but) back then was really breaking out with his heel rapper gimmick. You had the introduction of Hass & Benjamin as well, who by the time Mania rolled around, were really coming into their own. Also for my money, Chris Benoit was pretty underrated in 2003. I always loved his work (and will continue to do so), but unlike Eddie Guerrero in 2003 (whom I felt was where he should have been), I thought Benoit could have easily stepped up to the main event picture, particularly after Angle was sidlelined with his neck issues.

SmackDown! "won" WrestleMania XIX in my estimation. The Cruiserweight title match was electric, the Tag Team match was fun to watch and the WWE title match certainly shit all over Booker T. vs Triple H. After that, the SmackDown! show just got better and better (aside from the mostly-atrocious SmackDown build up for Judgment Day what with Mr. America, Zack Gowen and the infamous Stretcher Match) and around about the time they began to split off the PPVs, the difference was staggering. RAW's Bad Blood was awful. Absolutely. While SmackDown's Vengeance had low points also (namely Vince McMahon vs. Zack Gowen), it was a very, very good show.

I think they both became somewhat even around SummerSlam time. Things with Kane were really (excuse the pun) 'heating up' on RAW (despite the abismal handling of his long-awaited unmasking), Evolution was exciting (at least Flair, Orton and Batista), Shane O'Mac was back and they began involving Coach, JR and King into competition. I also like the little run they did with Christian as intercontinental champion.

The lowest point for SmackDown in 2003 was No Mercy. While not as bad as RAW's Bad Blood, the event's lows were very low. I didn't like the concept of the "Biker Chain match". The whole thing seemed extremely pointless. Also, the Stephanie McMahon - Vince/Sable deal was a really sour experience. It just seemed like an awfully rehashed edition of the Stephanie - Vince/Trish troubles from 2001.

Once again, RAW and SmackDown became quite neck and neck towards the end of 2003, but SmackDown still beat RAW out into the new year (at least in my opinion) and for better or worse, lead us into the absolute train wreck known as 2004.

Both brands had very high ups and some pretty low downs, but Smackdown was consistantly the better brand in 2003.