I mean everysingle smackdown pay-perview undertaker is in everysingle one of them. and according to wwe statictics everytime undertaker is wrestling the smackdown rating goes up and if he doesnt wrestle the ratinigs go down
2006-12-13 21:40:39 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Wrestling
This might be why they moved Kane to Smackdown anticipating the retirement of Taker. But im my opinion, Smackdown will stay alive if Kane stays on Smackdown. And to me, Smackdown is more exciting then Raw right now. It did not use to be like that, but it sure is alot better. This is probably because of JBL being a good commentator ringside. There are just more exciting wrestlers on Smackdown - all of the soap opera drama and aged wrestlers are on RAW. RAW is kinda....dead right now. Smackdown is the money.
2006-12-14 01:34:22 · answer #1 · answered by Joann Foxx 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not agree, because The Undertaker doesn't wrestle every episode of Smackdown. I really think that they should be moving Kane up the ladder, because I am tired of seeing Booker T and Batista battling for the title all the time. Kane has been in the WWE longer, and he shouldn't be helping MVP rise in the ranks.
2006-12-13 22:26:37 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well i belive that the undertaker and batista is the only things keeping smackdown afloat. they are trying hard to promote mr Kennedy and finlaly and king booker, but it aint working. smackdown is my least favorite of the shows (out of Raw, Impact, and ECW) it doest have very good wrighters and a channel who doest really promote the show (much like ECW) USA promoted Raw like crazy, Like wise Spike promotes Impact like that too. if vince want the ratings to go up, he would need to transfer some people from Raw to Smackdown, if the undertaker gets injured, it is O/V for smackdown.
2006-12-14 02:43:15 · answer #3 · answered by Devin G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
jeff hardy vs. eziekle jackson somewhat sucked there replaced into no guns for any of the matches which sucked somewhat undesirable there replaced into in problem-free words 3 matches and each and each and every of the matches sucked i agree that very last weeks smackdown somewhat sucked because it replaced into so undesirable i wish next smackdown will be more effective then very last weeks the promos from wrestlemania 25 made it somewhat suckey i will not watch that educate till they replace it this friday i choose the best lengthy matches because it truly is what make smackdown rock i choose good attempt adversarial to matches contained in the educate
2016-11-26 02:26:56 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree only because without Taker there Kane would be alone and the much anticipated reunion of the "brothers of destruction" would be lost. One of the main reasons I watch Smackdown is because of those two guys.
2006-12-14 07:28:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It might. Not too much though, I don't think, since like mentioned above, he's rarely on anymore. I don't honestly watch Smackdown anymore. I've watched WWE(F) forever, but the talent (or lack thereof) on Smackdown has made it absolutely unwatchable. So to me, it won't matter much.
2006-12-14 01:57:43 · answer #6 · answered by B T 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i disagree because Undertaker doesn't wrestle every week, he wrestles like only once or twice a month. I would say that if Batista or king booker or Lashley leaves...then the ratings will go down.
2006-12-14 07:05:57 · answer #7 · answered by Bling Bling 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't believe people actually watch smackdown. I think you are
right that the undertaker probably helps their ratings. I think they
are starting to sink already..
2006-12-13 21:46:18 · answer #8 · answered by Spacey 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
SD got some talent going there. Finlay , Booker , Regal , London , Kendrick , Helm , Kane , Kennedy so Undertaker retiring will be a lost but not a costly one.
2006-12-14 01:19:57 · answer #9 · answered by Ming P 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The SmackDown ratings are very low whether he's on it or not
2006-12-14 01:22:49 · answer #10 · answered by HHH 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋