So why was SmackDown so good in comparison to RAW?

Discussion in 'SmackDown' started by Crayo, Jul 4, 2012.

  1. Post your reasons why you rated the show a good 7+ out of 10 (the majority did), but RAW was so bad.

    Let's discuss this.
     
  2. I thought it was decent, 4/10 at most.
     
  3. For me, I rated it so highly because I actually didn't find it boring for once, but not only that, I thought the actual show itself was great, it had some great matches too, and the AJ interview was very good, I mean come on, Cole himself made the show a 10/10
     
  4. I don't really remember what happened on both shows.
     
  5. IMO it was because nearly every SD segment felt useful. ADR/Sheamus was booked perfectly, Punk/Bryan/AJ was booked perfectly. Rhodes going over and getting the MITB spot, Ziggler going over and getting his spot, backstage segments were funny (most of the time), not many fillers, Ryder winning the battle royal. There was a LOT of good which took up time which reduced fillers.
     
  6. This. With all that I could live with the two filler segments we had. And honestly, Sarge and Duggan are okay to bring out at an fourth of July themed episode.
     
  7. my high rating was purely because of the first segment where kane lit the BBQ with his magical fire powers :yay:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Because each part actually had meaning into it, I don't really think there was any filler in it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. The American Bash thing did it a little imo.
    Plus, the battle royal was pretty good, aswell for the booking of the matches.
     
  10. less drama, more matches. Even the setup on people like Kidd made me at least entertained instead of just seeing the same old boring trash that RAW brings to the table. Obviously santino and old men vs the mexicans/riley made me reminded why its the same product but mostly good matches instead of knowing the ME while waiting and hearing about it over, and over, and over.
     
  11. Amazing backstage segments, no filler, right guys winning.

    Sticking Rhodes or Ziggler in a meaningful match is a guaranteed good segment, you never see underdogs winning any more so Zack Ryder winning the Battle Royal was awesome, the Michael Cole/AJ Lee stuff was hysterical, Damien Sandow backstage, Kaitlyn in a bikini, nothing as idiotic as AJ trying to off herself via table spot... Very little Cena is always a plus!

    There were only like 5 matches on the show. That's good. The ones that were there meant something (even if I didn't like the legends thing) and more fun stuff and promo segments instead of meaningless matches is a great recipe for success, a recipe they need to copy down and save in a safe place.
     
  12. The less filler, the better. Filler matches are meaningless, you don't care about them and don't feel like watching them, if they're not there, it's always a plus. Interesting backstage segments, Cole made me laugh there, I admit, Punk/DB/AJ was booked nicely and makes you wonder what's going to happen next. The thing that hooks me to this storyline the most is that it's different and unpredictable. OK, I still think there's going to be that swerve where AJ gives DB the title but it's not that clear anymore. What else... Not much Sheamus or Cena. ADR making something a little different with his gimmick and getting heat? Great. Rhodes and Ziggler in good matches going over cleanly, awesome. The WHC MITB is going to be great. US themed episode, filler match with legends was excusable. Ryder winning the Battle Royal was good, since he was an underdog, and makes me wonder how the next episode is going to be, probably will involve Sandow in unfair matches or something similar.