10 Reasons WWE SmackDown Is Totally Irrelevant

7. There's No Incentive To Compete With RAW

00262203 Photo Wwe Smackdown Vs Raw 2006 €˜SmackDown vs. RAW€™ wasn€™t just a tagline of WWE video games; it was an internal WWE philosophy for a while, with both brands having (healthy) competition over which show was better. This was good for both shows, as each one showcased something different, allowing all the stars involved to put in as much effort as possible into making their show the best. The concept of Bragging Rights existed within WWE before it became a (short-lived) PPV event. Unfortunately, that all ended when Paul Heyman€™s role with the show ended. Based off of some rumors that have been circulating for some time, it is alleged that Stephanie McMahon, who was part of the creative department in WWE during the Ruthless Aggression era, was jealous of SmackDown€™s success under Heyman€™s control, and thus made life harder for Heyman in retaliation. Eventually, the argument was successfully made that RAW had to be the more important show because it was live and it was more historically-significant than SmackDown. After years of concentration being shifted to favor RAW over SmackDown, WWE basically merged the rosters, removing any real competition between shows. This in turn led to SmackDown being just another wrestling show, with nothing special going for it, other than its own World title, which also stopped existing in recent years.
Contributor

Alexander Podgorski is a writer for WhatCulture that has been a fan of professional wrestling since he was 8 years old. He loves all kinds of wrestling, from WWE and sports entertainment, to puroresu in Japan. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Queen's University in Political Studies and French, and a Master's Degree in Public Administration. He speaks English, French, Polish, a bit of German, and knows some odd words and phrases in half a dozen other languages.