DISCUSSION - How can Smackdown become a BETTER show in your OPINION?

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by HBK 1. Put the title on Undertaker. 2. No more women in the ring (this applies to both shows) 3. GO LIVE <---(most important) That's all I can think of.

1. Fuck no.
2. Until they can get more than 3 good female workers, yes.
3. Going livde doesn't affect ratings. It's been covered ad nauseum before.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by HBK If you honestly believe this statement, I can't take you seriously. Besides, this thread is about how to make Smackdown a better show, not how to increase Smackdown's ratings. I think it's pretty freakin obvious that going live would make Smackdown a better show. If you don't think so, refer to the previous paragraph, as it applies here as well.

Sorry, if you think making a show live makes it better, you're a fool to begin with. Same quality of programming.

If you think that a statement that ratings are not affected by whether the show is live or not makes it impossible to take me seriously, I'll refer you to the fact that when Smackdown! was a live show, ratings were not affected significantly.

If you cannot take my statement seriously after that, you're a retard, and hardly worth my time.

Thanks for playing.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by HBK Okay, I will dismiss your juvenile insults for now and focus on my point, trying to explain to you why I cannot take you seriously and why your opinion regarding live shows is wrong and slaps common sense in the face.

I love it. He makes an attack, then actually tries to play the "bigger man" by saying he'll ignore my juvenile insults.

Jesus, we've already proved you're not worth my time. And we didn't even need to get past your introductory statement to ptove it.

Thanks, retard. You saved me thr trouble of wasting an argument on you.

[The CyNick]

HBK, you are totally wrong about the going live thing. You may prefer a live show, but as KK pointed out (and you seemed to ignore) it has been done in the past, and actually the taped shows were doing better than the live ones. The number of people who read spoilers is so insignificant it just doesn't have an impact on the ratings. As a matter of fact, usually, taping a show allows those few people who do read spoilers to read something of interest, tell their friends, and as a result the number could go up (this happened with Foley winning the WWE title for the first time). You can dispute this all you want, but I guarantee you what KK is saying is the truth. End of story. (probably not though)

Now to Heyman:

I might have forgot some of the stuff, so I appologize if I missed something.

But here's my take on SD:

The best thing I read on this thread was whoever said just give it time. The WWE screwed over SD by stealing talent to make HHH look good. Thats done, nothing you can do about it, but now they are trying to make new stars. Thats going to take time, and we have to be patient.

In terms of turns, the only one I would do is RVD turning on Eddie. I think they need to do some more tag matches together and then eventually he turns on Eddie, either in a tag match, or else in a one-on-one match. I think this needs to be the program for Eddie after the JBL thing ends in June. I also think RVD, with Heyman and the Dudleys makes for a good faction.

Turning Cena might be a good idea down the line, but he's too over right now to do that now. Ive said this a million times, and I'm sure I'll say it a million more, but you shouldn't turn guys that fans dont want to be turned. This would also apply to Eddie and Taker. People love those guys, and more importantly they PAY MONEY to see them, so why take those guys away from the fans? Eddie for example can get over as a heel, but he's never been more over than he is right now, so why go against that.

Hire Road Dogg? Not if I can help it. New Age Outlaws are a tired gimmick from 4 years ago, I dont think it would get over quite frankly.

With new guys, I think SD has enough new guys already who need to get over. What SD really needs at this point is some mid level guys who are over, who can feud with the new guys. You got Jindrak, Dupree, Mordecai, and now Kenzo who all need to be protected and pushed. What they could use are some guys like Test or Rhyno who could work programs with these new guys and put them over. Problem on SD is that they have a bunch of main event guys (Eddie, Cena, Rey, RVD, etc) but few guys who are expendable but have some name recognition.

I hate the Hardcore title, so I dont want to see that brought back. Keep the CW title if they are serious, if not make it a European or TV title, and open it up to all weights. That way, as was said before some of the top CWs can move on to the US title or work tags or whatever.

[Heyman]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Now to Heyman: In terms of turns, the only one I would do is RVD turning on Eddie. I think they need to do some more tag matches together and then eventually he turns on Eddie, either in a tag match, or else in a one-on-one match. I think this needs to be the program for Eddie after the JBL thing ends in June. I also think RVD, with Heyman and the Dudleys makes for a good faction. Turning Cena might be a good idea down the line, but he's too over right now to do that now. Ive said this a million times, and I'm sure I'll say it a million more, but you shouldn't turn guys that fans dont want to be turned.

Would RVD be any different from Cena, Guerrero, or Taker? (in terms of the fans not wanting him to 'turn'). My initial thought is 'no' since RVD has had the same character for a number of years now.

Speaking of Eddie Guerrero, one reason why I toyed with the idea of HIM turning heel, was because he is the best worker. Guerrero can work programs with Taker, Cena, Mysterio, and RVD and make them ALL look good. Can a guy like RVD do that?

As far as Eddie goes, don't you think he seems kind of like Kurt Angle or The Rock? (i.e. the fans love him/them, but would have no problem 'booing' their characters).

Here's what I was thinking yesterday:

-Leading up to Summerslam, John Cena becomes the #1 contender for Eddie Guerrero's WWE title.

-At Summerslam, Chavo comes out and helps Eddie retain against Cena (signifying Eddie's heel turn).

-Eddie feuds with Cena for another month, before moving on to Undertaker, Rey Mysterio, and Charlie Hass. Also during this time, RVD has gone on a torrid streak of his own. RVD has defeated the likes of the Dudleys (in singles), Booker T, Bradshaw, and Renee Dupree.

Heading up to Wrestlemania, RVD and Eddie Guerrero finally lock horns. At Wrestlemania, RVD goes over Eddie Guerrero to win the title.


One thing about Eddie Guerrero - I have a feeling that his popularity may not last too long as a face (I could be wrong on this, but call it a 'gut' feeling). Eddie doesn't have that loveable 'cockiness' that he had as a heel. Angle didn't have that either. That's something that guys like Austin, The Rock, and Jericho HAVE as faces.

Again - I could be wrong, but it just seems like Eddie's more 'natural' crowd reaction is for the fans to "love to hate" him.

[The CyNick]

I dont think RVD will work as a heel on his own, but I think Heyman is strong enough to get him over.

Cena, Taker and Eddie are are a higher level in terms of being over with the fans than RVD is, so it wouldn't be as big of a problem.

The other thing is that Eddie is 'the' top guy on Smackdown, and all angles will revolve around him for the forseeable future. So there's no reason to set up a series of angles that ultimately puts over RVD as the top guy. Eddie is better and more over, so he needs to be the focus. The only reason I would turn RVD is just so that Eddie has a program that wont suck. Even if RVD would win the title as a transitional, it would quickly go back to Eddie because he's the focus of the SD brand.

I also think Eddie has the juice to stay over for a long time. If he can get a crowd standing on their feet behind him against a stiff like Bradshaw then he can do it against anyone. So therefore I see no good reason to turn him. 2 years from now when he's burned out as a babyface, sure turn, he's good enough that he'l get over, but for now its Eddie's show and there's no reason to change that.

[KillerWolf]

[QUOTE=Heyman]Would RVD be any different from Cena, Guerrero, or Taker? (in terms of the fans not wanting him to 'turn'). My initial thought is 'no' since RVD has had the same character for a number of years now.

what i cant understand is why fans even care about RVD anymore. i think anyone who is a true fan of RVD would want him to turn heel. he's been a nowhere (and boring) character for years now. a heel turn MIGHT make him interesting (and a viable contender) again.

[BasicThuganomics]

Originally Posted by HBK Multiple personality disorder? Riiight... *wink wink* By the way, learn how to spell.

Try and be a smartass all you want, but the fact is that Smackdown has been aired live before and the ratings weren't affected. If you want to be taken seriously, you should try and acknowledge that fact and then continue with your argument you have going on. But you're ignoring it instead so quit trying to act like you got the better of KK when you didn't...

[The Lone Drinker]

In 2002, Smackdown had The Rock, Triple H, Hulk Hogan, Kurt Angle, and Chris Jericho [just to name a few] and they had Vince McMahon running the show every week.

That is why Smackdown was the better show for such a long time. They had big named stars.

Now who do they have besides The Undertaker? No one. I realize Kurt's still there but he cannot even wrestle. Until Smackdown gets wrestlers who are actually over, it will keep on sucking while Raw will keep ruling.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by The Lone Drinker In 2002, Smackdown had The Rock, Triple H, Hulk Hogan, Kurt Angle, and Chris Jericho [just to name a few] and they had Vince McMahon running the show every week. That is why Smackdown was the better show for such a long time. They had big named stars. Now who do they have besides The Undertaker? No one. I realize Kurt's still there but he cannot even wrestle. Until Smackdown gets wrestlers who are actually over, it will keep on sucking while Raw will keep ruling.

Except for the fact that Hogan wasn't drawing. Same with Vince "running the show."

[The CyNick]

Sd was still better than RAW even in 2004, before Mania. Its only been since Mania that they have suffered, and I think anyone could see that would happen when you lose Taker, Lesnar, and Angle as regular characters. Plus they also lost Edge to RAW, who could have been a big help to SD.

Now RAW is filled with recognizable stars, and SD is lacking, as a result people are not watching SD as much as they were before the big losses.

I think ultimately Brock was the biggest loss though.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by HBK Multiple personality disorder? Riiight... *wink wink* By the way, learn how to spell.

Oh no! As typing, I hit the "R" key instead ot he "E" key!

Seriously. Your argument is fucking weak if that's the best you can come back with.

[spd10000]

Begin with new commentators.

[darkpower]

Originally Posted by spd10000 Begin with new commentators.

You're kidding, right?

I don't see how this could even be an issue, seeing as how many people are perfering Cole and Tazz commentating rather than the stale and overdone style of JR and King. There's nothing wrong with the commentating.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by darkpower You're kidding, right? I don't see how this could even be an issue, seeing as how many people are perfering Cole and Tazz commentating rather than the stale and overdone style of JR and King. There's nothing wrong with the commentating.

Huge flaw in your reasoning there.

Better=/=good, great, or any other such word.

Better means better quality than the stale half-assed antics of JR and King. Quite frankly, I prefer Cole and Tazz too, but I think I'd prefer a brick and a chinchilla to Ross an Lawler.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by HBK lol. sad.

If you say so, kid.

Whatever makes you feel better about your debunked rant.

[BasicThuganomics]

Originally Posted by HBK Nice try.

So do you think that you've gotten the better of KK in this little argument you two have going on? You're really starting to be annoying because you're just assuming that You're right about everything but you're not. If I remember correctly, the main point of the argument was that you said that Smackdown should go live to help improve it. KK said that going live wouldn't affect the ratings really (and he is right, because the live shows that smackdown has done have not had a big ratings boost) And you seem to disagree. Basically, you're wrong HBK and KK is right about that issue.


SO SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by BasicThuganomics So do you think that you've gotten the better of KK in this little argument you two have going on? You're really starting to be annoying because you're just assuming that You're right about everything but you're not. If I remember correctly, the main point of the argument was that you said that Smackdown should go live to help improve it. KK said that going live wouldn't affect the ratings really (and he is right, because the live shows that smackdown has done have not had a big ratings boost) And you seem to disagree. Basically, you're wrong HBK and KK is right about that issue. SO SHUT THE **** UP!!!!!!

Dude. Just nod and let the retard think he's won.