2 shows a week (The Debut of Smackdown)

[The Naitch]

Remember when wrestling was hot that they came up with Smackdown, which allowed storylines to progress twice a week for a total of 8 shows to make the feud pan out.

Now everything is once again since the brand split.

So do you prefer watching angles once a week or two? Obviously two, but do you think it's affected the product right now in a negative way or not.

[Kane Knight]

Remember when wrestling was hot that they came up with Smackdown, which allowed storylines to progress twice a week for a total of 8 shows to make the feud pan out.

Now everything is once again since the brand split.

So do you prefer watching angles once a week or two? Obviously two, but do you think it's affected the product right now in a negative way or not.
I think that two shows over which a week could advance a storyline helped out a lot, though its current effect is diminished. Actually, I think two shows a week now is worth less than one show each from WWF and WCW. With the Raw rewind and the Smackdown Rebound! recapping the other shows instead of advancing their own product, with no true sense of identity...

I think two shows is better, but the current setup doesn't give a lot of time to establish fueds, with so many PPVs, so little time (as little as 3 weeks between a PPV to get a feud up) and almost no carry over between each month.

[Loose Cannon]

At first, I liked the 2 show a week deal. Only the 'best" guys in the WWE on the show and not a lot of crappy sqaush matches or anything. Then I started to get tired of seeing the same guys from Raw be on Smackdown 3 days later. And I hated it.

Then they split them up and I liked it a lot better cause there was a lot more variety, even though you get the "shitty" guys at times.

The problem is the 1 PPV a month for each show. Gives them 4 weeks for buildup. Half the time, I wouldn't even now there was a PPV that week until the Sunday it aired. From a wrestling standpoit, it's fucking ridiculous to have one PPV every month. I would do 6 a month. But it does good business, so I really can't argue against it.

So to answer the question, I prefer watching once a week, with PPV's every 2 months.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I never watched wrestling when there was only one show, but I do thinkt hat right now, the timeslot's the WWE has at its disposal are not being used to their maximum efficiency.

Drop the Rebound crap, if we want to see what happened on RAW, we'll watch it, watch one of the three recap shows it has, or go onto WWE.com for details.

Heat and Velocity could be put to better use as well. It annoys me that about half the show is dedicated to showing recaps for RAW/SmackDown!. Bottom Line, Afterburn and The Experience are the WWE's recap shows. kep them this way. Heat & Velocity could be used to further major angles, and be used for some good wrestling time. Paul London vs. Akio in an Iron Man Match is something I would watch Velocity for, not crappy segment re-runs.

And why not do something with Bottom Line and Afterburn? Maybe air footage from house shows on it. JBL & Orlando Jordan vs. John Cena & The Big Show is something that's been happening on SmackDown! house shows, so why not air one of these matches during Afterburn's timeslot, and save the recapping for The Experience.

Maybe this way PPVs will get more build-up and anticipation, and more guys will get a chance to shine.

[The One]

Best period of wrestling had 2 shows...one MAIN show on Mondays and another secondary show on either Saturday and Sunday...take that for what it's worth.

[SuperSlim]

my main problem with this thing is that I mean the 2 shows a week thing is cool. but I just had to rant about the PPV thing.

Raw has their own special PPV, Smackdown has their own special PPV, instead of using the two months that they could to build feuds for the PPV they freakin do nothin but sit on their asses. then when it's like 2 weeks before the PPV they start the freakin feud. Why?

then the other thing, Cena/JBL II. Why the blue hell have a tourney? I mean We knew that the guy that was feudin with teh champ throughout the tourney was gonna win so that just waited a lot of good feud time right there. And to say it was to start other feuds? nah. They could have done that a lot better than how it was done.

I just don't like how they aren't using all the time that is there. Instead they have these piece of crap tourneys week after week to determine the #1 contender then do some halfass job building up the feud until the PPV.

[V]

best thing would be a payperview every month (both raw AND smackdown) this gives the normal 8 shows of build

back before the split, i was pumped for every ppv, and now it's like "wtf there was just a ppv last week, what is going on" and even though i get them for free, sometimes watching them even becomes a chore, but still, i hate missing raw/smackdown/ppvs so i watch them anyway

[Mr. Nerfect]

best thing would be a payperview every month (both raw AND smackdown) this gives the normal 8 shows of build

back before the split, i was pumped for every ppv, and now it's like "wtf there was just a ppv last week, what is going on" and even though i get them for free, sometimes watching them even becomes a chore, but still, i hate missing raw/smackdown/ppvs so i watch them anyway

Armageddon was one like that for me. Funaki winning the WWE Cruiserweight Championship was the highlight, and the crowd was dead for it.

I see the point SuperSlim made, and agree completely. Why do we only now see Paul London vs. Chavo Guerrero taking shape, when there has been proper build for this feud since FEBRUARY!