Guest Mulatto Heat Posted August 20, 2002 Report Posted August 20, 2002 Up until yesterday, I would have said outright that RAW is better. I find that Smackdown is too afflicted with several midcarders that are just "there". Guys like Hardcore Holly and Val Venis just go out week after week doing matches with no reasoning behind them and do nothing to advance their characters (Val hasn't done a sexual innuendo in months and I can't even think of the last time Holly has done anything "hardcore"). Meanwhile, RAW has people like Booker T, Goldust, Nowinski, etc. who consistently add to their characters. But I agree with Spiff and Kahran, what can be counted on Smackdown is decent wrestling action. I still have to go with RAW but if Smackdown this week is exceptional, then we'll see....
Guest Brian Posted August 20, 2002 Report Posted August 20, 2002 Booker T has had little, if any character development at all. Same for Golddust. Nowinski, maybe if you count that soap opera angle which is stupid to begin with. Hardly any mid-carders right now have had any development in their characters. SmackDown features alot of new guys in their show. RAW is more of the old guard. SmackDown generally has better wrestling. SmackDown is consistent, RAW is totally hit or miss.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now