|
|
Post by arthuradams2002 on Oct 24, 2009 2:54:09 GMT -5
Back in the old days, there would be a lot of loser leaves town matches. Nowdays it seems like WWE often does "loser goes to Smackdown" matches. I hate they way they make going to Smackdown a "punishment" in a stipulation match. I first remember them doing it a few years ago as the blow off match between Matt Hardy and Edge. Then, they did one with The Great Khali and Kane. They teased it again with the Cena/Edge feud. Now, if Cena loses, he will be exiled to Smackdown. You never see Smackdown or ECW matches where the loser must go to RAW.
At least it made since when he Raven exiled to Heat back in 2002.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slingshot Suplay on Oct 24, 2009 3:02:47 GMT -5
Because on Smackdown, they'd actually have to work for their money instead of getting paid to be in the background of guest host segments.
|
|
EJS
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 18,857
|
Post by EJS on Oct 24, 2009 3:08:28 GMT -5
it's not like they say "loser has to go to smackdown", it's being kicked off the brand.
Common sense dictates the other brand will pick you up.
|
|
Raging_Demons
Don Corleone
I Can Ride My Bike With No Handlebars, No Handlebars, No Handlebars!
Posts: 1,620
|
Post by Raging_Demons on Oct 24, 2009 3:26:14 GMT -5
Back in the old days, there would be a lot of loser leaves town matches. Nowdays it seems like WWE often does "loser goes to Smackdown" matches. I hate they way they make going to Smackdown a "punishment" in a stipulation match. I first remember them doing it a few years ago as the blow off match between Matt Hardy and Edge. Then, they did one with The Great Khali and Kane. They teased it again with the Cena/Edge feud. Now, if Cena loses, he will be exiled to Smackdown. You never see Smackdown or ECW matches where the loser must go to RAW. At least it made since when he Raven exiled to Heat back in 2002. Its been like that for years. In Vince McMahon eyes he sees RAW as the Flagship show & Smackdown as the "illegitimate red-headed stepchild" as it were. When ECW became "WWECW" it became RAW as Flagship, ECW as number 2, Smackdown as the "red-headed stepchild" while having new talent debut. Now a couple of years later. RAW is STILL the Flagship Show, ECW is a National Version of FCW, & Smackdown as the "red-headed stepchild" that lets new talent see if they are good enough for RAW or experiment with the stupid stuff. It always confuses me how WWE give priority to a show that can only be seen by Cable & Satellite while giving a finger to a show that has network access that everybody can see. Ok MyNetwork TV is no longer a "Network" but you get what I mean. |
|
|
|
Post by oafman on Oct 24, 2009 3:35:33 GMT -5
WWE may not be high on Smackdown much, but they love the enough to put out a 10 Year Anniversary DVD, and have The Rock appear on their 10th Anniversary show (although it was taped but still, It's The Rock!).
I don't like Smackdown much these days, ever since the brand split. I just watch RAW now. Smackdown was great before the Brand Split, and it helped develop storylines more.
|
|
|
|
Post by arthuradams2002 on Oct 24, 2009 4:18:17 GMT -5
Back in the old days, there would be a lot of loser leaves town matches. Nowdays it seems like WWE often does "loser goes to Smackdown" matches. I hate they way they make going to Smackdown a "punishment" in a stipulation match. I first remember them doing it a few years ago as the blow off match between Matt Hardy and Edge. Then, they did one with The Great Khali and Kane. They teased it again with the Cena/Edge feud. Now, if Cena loses, he will be exiled to Smackdown. You never see Smackdown or ECW matches where the loser must go to RAW. At least it made since when he Raven exiled to Heat back in 2002. Its been like that for years. In Vince McMahon eyes he sees RAW as the Flagship show & Smackdown as the "illegitimate red-headed stepchild" as it were. When ECW became "WWECW" it became RAW as Flagship, ECW as number 2, Smackdown as the "red-headed stepchild" while having new talent debut. Now a couple of years later. RAW is STILL the Flagship Show, ECW is a National Version of FCW, & Smackdown as the "red-headed stepchild" that lets new talent see if they are good enough for RAW or experiment with the stupid stuff. It always confuses me how WWE give priority to a show that can only be seen by Cable & Satellite while giving a finger to a show that has network access that everybody can see. Ok MyNetwork TV is no longer a "Network" but you get what I mean. My theory is that Vince put effort into a network broadcast when Pay Per View via the internet became an option. Obviously, if you watching Raw on cable or satellite, you have the ability to order the PPV from your TV. There would be no point in WWE expanding their audience to people who only pick up the locals, hence they can't order PPV off the TV. There are a lot of people who only get free local TV, yet have an internet subscription. Also, Smackdown might be the catalyst to try to get, who id like to call non-cable people, into subscribing to a cable service in order to see Raw. |
|
|
|
Post by stevieraymark on Oct 24, 2009 9:40:01 GMT -5
Its a punishment because on Smackdown you're wrestling on a show that needs to have all its audience reactions edited in and you're wrestling on a show that is watched by nowhere near as many viewers and draws smaller crowds. Simple
|
|
Tarik Dee
Hank Scorpio
I loved you before I even ever knew what love was like
Posts: 5,233 
|
Post by Tarik Dee on Oct 24, 2009 11:36:34 GMT -5
I rather having good wrestlers being punished on smackdown and "Good" wrestler like batista on Raw, in my opinion ECW and Smackdown are the best shows on WWE right now.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,144 
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Oct 24, 2009 11:40:39 GMT -5
Back in the old days, there would be a lot of loser leaves town matches. Nowdays it seems like WWE often does "loser goes to Smackdown" matches. I hate they way they make going to Smackdown a "punishment" in a stipulation match. I first remember them doing it a few years ago as the blow off match between Matt Hardy and Edge. Then, they did one with The Great Khali and Kane. They teased it again with the Cena/Edge feud. Now, if Cena loses, he will be exiled to Smackdown. You never see Smackdown or ECW matches where the loser must go to RAW. At least it made since when he Raven exiled to Heat back in 2002. Because they're not just going to do a "Loser gets fired from WWE" match anymore unless someone's contract is REALLY up (ie Jeff Hardy). So if you're on RAW, and you're considered too big a star for ECW, of course it's going to become "Loser goes to Smackdown". There's just no way that they'd put Cena on ECW if he lost. Also, it's NEVER specifically been "Loser Goes to Smackdown", just "Loser Leaves RAW". The premise of the OP is just a little misleading, there. |
|
|
|
Post by Fantozzi on Oct 24, 2009 12:15:44 GMT -5
the only real case i remember when there was a "if he loses, he'll go to smackdown" situation is edge/cena TLC
|
|
|
|
Post by boomhauer20055 on Oct 24, 2009 16:19:53 GMT -5
Its just storyline. Everyone switches back and forth in reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Young Game on Oct 24, 2009 16:50:23 GMT -5
Because on Smackdown, they'd actually have to work for their money instead of getting paid to be in the background of guest host segments. This. Very much this. Smackdown's where the real workrate is at. |
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Oct 24, 2009 17:01:31 GMT -5
It's not like it's a punishment, that's not how they are presenting the story.
Orton wants Cena gone from Raw. He doesn't want to see him again, therefore he has motivation to want him gone and adds the stipulation. Cena understandably would be sad to leave the show he worked on for the past 4 and a half years, but it's not being presented that Smackdown is a punishment.
They've made great strides with Smackdown recently in getting it to Raw's level. Back in 07 it was clearly an inferior show but the 08 draft changed all that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin's Thorn on Oct 24, 2009 17:37:37 GMT -5
Vince only appears on Smackdown nowadays. To say he thinks RAW is the better show (whilst in the midst of a blatant ratings gimmick like the RAW Celebrity guest host) is more than a little disingenuous.
|
|
Raging_Demons
Don Corleone
I Can Ride My Bike With No Handlebars, No Handlebars, No Handlebars!
Posts: 1,620
|
Post by Raging_Demons on Oct 28, 2009 8:45:57 GMT -5
My theory is that Vince put effort into a network broadcast when Pay Per View via the internet became an option. Obviously, if you watching Raw on cable or satellite, you have the ability to order the PPV from your TV. There would be no point in WWE expanding their audience to people who only pick up the locals, hence they can't order PPV off the TV. There are a lot of people who only get free local TV, yet have an internet subscription. Also, Smackdown might be the catalyst to try to get, who id like to call non-cable people, into subscribing to a cable service in order to see Raw. Your theory is off for one thing. You assumed that Vinnie Mac knows what the Internet is. To Vinnie Mac the Internet Machine is just fancy typewriter! |
|
Fiddleford H. McGucket
El Dandy
My Mind's been gone for 30-odd years! Can't Break what's already broken!
Posts: 8,748
|
Post by Fiddleford H. McGucket on Oct 28, 2009 9:45:50 GMT -5
Let's be fair, I don't consider SD! to be a punishment as much as time to re-evaluate your style/matches.
The issue that I would have is that SD is taped and edited. Which to me would indicate that while you put on solid matches, there are some issues that Live TV would make it harder to hide.
So in essence I don't see it as a step down, but more as a hint that live TV isn't the best showcase of your abilities
|
|
|
|
Post by Woooooolhouse! on Oct 28, 2009 10:10:31 GMT -5
It's simple. Vince McMahon is in that weird religion that worships colors.
Blue = Evil
Red = Super bad ass and kewwwwlllll!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2009 10:17:03 GMT -5
Lately and based on this week's spoilers - I'd consider going to SD a punishment too.
Since his return that show has changed quite a bit. I blame the Undertaker and Vince, since they came to SD the show has just gotten less wrestling oriented.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,121
|
Post by Mozenrath on Oct 28, 2009 11:45:40 GMT -5
Because on Smackdown, they'd actually have to work for their money instead of getting paid to be in the background of guest host segments. This. Very much this. Smackdown's where the real workrate is at. To be fair, they've spent pretty much just as much time lately with Teddy and Scott Armstrong, so that part ends up being a moot point. Smackdown did win the two tag matches, so in a kayfabe sense, they are kind of top dog, at least this instant. |
|
|
|
Post by The Deadly Snake on Oct 28, 2009 11:47:43 GMT -5
I think people are forgetting about the obvious: finances. Wrestlers probably get less non-guaranteed money on Smackdown, like people on ECW. People on ECW generally don't appear at PPV's, therefore, any PPV bonuses you are supposed to get, you won't. It also means less exposure, and less exposure means selling less merchandise, and less merchandise is less money for you.
It's some of the reasons Kurt Angle got peeved when they put on the ECW brand in the early days.
|
|
"
