Powerslam stops covering Smackdown!

[DC 536]

I was wondering what others think of the following quote from this month's edition of Powerslam.....

In quick news from Raw (please note: beginning this month, I will report only on newsworthy WWE television programmes, which rules out Smackdown! out at the moment)...

After the stellar year the blue brand has had, I find the feelings of Fin Martin surprising. But what about you? Are Powerslam right in their assessment of Smackdown!?

 

 

Oh, and Nimf was quoted in Stately's column, which she is proud of, lol.

[Guest FreeSpirit]

Well I still enjoy watching SmackDown, and how a show watched by millions of people in many different countries around the world cant be "newsworthy" is really just a bit silly IMO.

[Guest Christof]

Well that's a retarded piece of journalism if ever there was one!

[Guest The Great Ahmar]

The Whole Magazines gone to ****! Still better than Fighting Spirit though.

[Guest Jack]

I don't watch SmackDown! anymore. I find it the most boring wrestling TV show, since TNA in it's first few years. Like I've said many times before, the show is being booked fine, but the talent make it unwatchable. I really couldn't care less about anyone on the roster, excpet from Flair, MVP, Edge and JBL, if you include him.

 

The roster is so full of mediocrity it's a joke. As an entertainment show, it's thepits. Full of second rate wrestlers, with zero charisma or star power. It's no wonder the fans absolutely sh*t all over it every week. The only wrestler on the show right now who the fans actually respect as a main eventer is Batista.

 

There is guys like Mysterio and Hardy who get a decent pop, but they have proven, with them lacking in the charisma area, they cannot have interesting feuds, unless completely carried, such as Myterio/Eddie and Hardy/JBL.

 

I don't see how the show can entertain anybody when the talent is so incredibly thin. I'm honestly suprised people care about it. It's just so "Meh".

 

Still, as long as people do rate it, I can get a good laugh of those people comparing it to great periods such as WWF 1997-1999 or WCW 1996-1998 or even ROH 2005-2006. Really, this SmackDown! period isn't as good as TNA is now. And I'm serious there.

 

But Powerslam dropping coverage of the show is unbelievable.

[Guest R.BrandLegend]

I like Smackdown better than Raw but i must admit my interest in WWE is dwindeling again after i stopped watching it a couple of years ago, Ive discovered TNA. I cannot consentrate on Raw because of Lawler.

[Dead Crow 370]

I agree with absolutely nothing of what you've just written. SmackDown is by far the best booked and most entertaining wrestling show anywhere in the mainstream right now. It's so far ahead of TNA, it's lapping it repeatedly.

 

Unlike TNA, it has managed to create two very prominent midcard stars in MVP and Mr. Kennedy who have not only been given the perfect slow build (instead of the current Lashley rush job), but who are destined to be main eventers because the fans actually take them seriously due to the work done on SmackDown.

 

Unlike TNA, it has created a monster in Lashley who was being taken seriously by the fans (due to his work with Finlay and Booker) until he moved to ECW. No one can make a convincing argument about TNA making stars when they have decapitated Samoa Joe to a degree that has far exceeded their destruction of Monty Brown (another fatal mistake they made).

 

Unlike TNA, SmackDown lets their talent go 20-odd minutes with good matches and simple old-school story telling (key example here is Matt Hardy, who is by far and away the best upper midcarder in the WWE or TNA right now - he's far too consistent to be ruled out).

 

Unlike TNA, SmackDown has some fantastic workers who actually look like great wrestlers because they're given time to be great wrestlers and to evolve their characters. Over the past year, we've had Undertaker, Finlay, Regal, Benoit, Mysterio, Chavo, Helms, Hardy, London & Kendrick, and now Edge. All great workers. They've made London and Kendrick look like a dominant team worth caring about. They made Finlay a serious character who is not only over but still able to draw a laugh through Little *******/Hornswoggle, which many thought would kill his character (in fact it made him even more over). They made MVP turn from an overrated sports pimp into a very credible athlete. They used Finlay, Regal and Benoit to perfection in card positioning. They've kept Batista over (despite his limitations) and even he has been making a real effort lately.

 

Unlike TNA, SmackDown has the single best announce team in wrestling right now. JBL is far and away the best colour guy in the business since Paul Heyman (and before him, Jesse Ventura), and even Cole is bearable when he has JBL carrying him. TNA have MIKE TENAY WHO SCREAMS AT EVERYTHING AND WON'T STOP TALKING! And DON WEST WHO ALSO SCREAMS AT EVERYTHING BUT SAYS STUPID THINGS THAT MAKE NO SENSE!

 

Unlike TNA, its storylines aren't a) confusing, b) over the top, c) past their sell-by date, or d) utter s**t. Instead of copying Raw (such as Big Fat Oily Guy/Big Dick Johnson, VKM/DX, Sting v Abyss/Undertaker vs. anyone from 1999), they should copy SmackDown. Matt Hardy and Gregory Helms don't like each other.. so they wrestle to determine who is the better man. PERFECT BOOKING! MVP takes on Benoit and repeatedly comes *this* close to beating him, which motivates him to do better, and motivates Benoit because he knows this young arrogant kid is actually catching up to him. PERFECT BOOKING!

 

Unlike TNA, SmackDown knows who its star is. It's Batista. TNA seems to only NOW know who it wants to push as its top heel. For about 6 months now, they've pushed everyone and in turn, no one has got over. That's why Batista is a star and Christian Cage is not.

 

Need I go on? I presume not. I know Craig, Naitch et al will all join me in the love for the superior brand of mainstream wrestling.

Edited June 30, 2007 by DraVen

[Guest Chriscare]

I was wondering what others think of the following quote from this month's edition of Powerslam.....After the stellar year the blue brand has had, I find the feelings of Fin Martin surprising. But what about you? Are Powerslam right in their assessment of Smackdown!?

 

 

Oh, and Nimf was quoted in Stately's column, which she is proud of, lol.

 

Smackdowns been better than Raw for ages in my opinion, the John Cena show does nothing for me, especially with Edge and Nitro gone, although we're still waiting to see the first raw since the draft

[Guest FreeSpirit]

There was a RAW after the draft on June 18th wasn't there?, the day after the Supplemental Draft, and the Monday before Vengeance.

[Guest The Beltster]

He was probably being sarcastic, didnt you stop to think about that? :lol Oh, and who cares: SmackDown! is pathetic. No stars, no names, no point.

[Guest Jack]

I agree on everythigng you wrote there, DraVen, however, I couldn't say that is what makes a good wrestling show. I have praised the booking of SmackDown! so much - But I still find it incredibly boring. I might have made this analogy before, so excuse me if I'm repeating myself. iMPACT!, for all it's faults, is a film like 'Crank'. It's simple, it's over the top, it has poor acting, but you know, it's such an exciting film. Is it a masterpiece? Does it fit the criteria of what supposedly makes a good film? No, but it has something which makes you want to come back to it. Sure, you could sit there and pick faults in it all day long, it is what it is.

 

SmackDown! is something like 'Citizen Kane'. Technically brilliant, it has the script, basic storyline and everything else you want to list, down to a T. Is it a thrilling film? No.

 

I'm sure I can't persuade you, because I agree with every point you made. SmackDown! is the technically better show, but I would watch TNA 99 times out of 100 over it. I don't think SmackDown! is what a post-1940's wrestling show should be. It's not nearly exciting enough and lacks the star power needed to make it entertaining.

Edited June 30, 2007 by Jack

[Guest the HiTman]

Smackdown is so goddamn boring it's barely watchable. But it should still be covered in the magazine.

 

DraVen; I have no idea why anyone likes Matt Hardy. What is so consistant about him? Zero charisma, rubbish on the mic, sh!t entrance music, toss finisher. It cracks me up when he starts clasping his hands to indicate the Twist of Fate..he looks like a toddler excited about getting a biscuit.

 

There is NOTHING interesting about him. NOTHING!

 

I do agree with your other points though.

Edited June 30, 2007 by the HiTman

[Dead Crow 370]

I'd agree were TNA a "great film". But it isn't. Naitch made a great post in the Room 101 thread in one of the other forums here, concerning Guy Ritchie...

 

He is just a part of that whole post modernist surge following Tarantino's success in the early 1990s where virtually every single young filmmaker wanted to be Tarantino so they started playing around with the boundaries and techniques of cinema in an incredibly self indulgent way and he is probably the most guilty culprit. 'Lock, Stock...' and 'Snatch' are just so absolutely crammed full of things which scream 'LOOK AT ME, I'M A NEW, 'INNOVATIVE', POST MODERNIST FILMMAKER. I WANT TO BE THE BRITISH TARANTINO. OUT WITH THE OLD, IN WITH THE NEW'. But he wasn't really doing anything original and what he did do was basically just the equivalent of him whipping out his penis and masturbating on camera for 90 minutes.

 

If you reworded that a little, you have TNA. They're ripping off BAD ideas. Not even good ideas, but the lame ideas that hardly even worked in their first run, let alone during their poor imitation. They give you no reason to care because no one is a superstar. Everyone is on the same level. They do daring things and yet do nothing innovative or risky. WWE took a risk in making Edge champion (first time around) and it paid off. TNA could have taken that risk with Raven, Monty Brown, Samoa Joe, etc. Each time, the fans desperately called for it and each time TNA ruined it. That's not captivating - it's downright annoying. The lack of time they give matches is annoying. Even then, they can't even do a clean finish to a main event unless it's gimmicked to the hilt anyway. It gets boring after a while because it's lazy and counter-productive and above all, predictable. That's probably the worst thing about TNA - either their "unpredictability" is far too predictable, or it's unpredictable because the route they choose to take is the stupidest one that only a moron would go down.

 

As for SmackDown's star power, I'd rather non-stars used right than stars used wrong, but that's just me. Plus, I consider Edge and John Cena to be the two top stars in the company as SD has one of them, so to me at least, it's all good.

 

DarVen; I have no idea why anyone likes Matt Hardy. What is so consistant about him? Zero charisma, rubbish on the mic, sh!t entrance music, toss finisher. It cracks me up when he starts clasping his hands to indicate the Twist of Fate..he looks like a toddler excited about getting a biscuit.

 

There is NOTHING interesting about him. NOTHING!

He is very charismatic, he just shows it in a different way to a guy like Cena or The Rock. It's like when people said Goldberg had no charisma. People who thought that didn't know what they were talking about. Charisma isn't just playing to the crowd - it's showing passion and energy. Chris Masters has charisma. Edge has charisma. John Cena s**ts charisma for breakfast. It's not always just a pure black and white label to hand to people.

 

Sure, he isn't *great* on the mic (although his Mattitude era proved he actually CAN talk), but neither was Benoit. Neither is Finlay. Hell, Batista is utter tripe on the mic. But used in the right way with the right people, it doesn't matter. Of course it's gonna stump his growth as a main eventer, but that's why he's never going to be a big draw main event guy like Cena. What he does in the ring is what matters, and that's where he's at his strongest. He can bump well, he is smooth and very rarely wreckless (unlike his brother), can have good matches with nearly anyone, can adjust his style, and has even changed they way he goes for his finisher, so that now it can come out of nowhere, which adds to the story of most of his matches. That's another positive - he's learning to be a great storyteller. That will take him far with todays product.

Edited June 30, 2007 by DraVen

[Guest DarkMatchJobber]

When I read that Smackdown comment in Powerslam I just laughed to myself because most of the time nothing interesting happens on the show.

 

Example = Batista's had not one,not two but four world title shots in a row on ppv and it's boring watching him challenge again and again,surely there are others worthy of a title shot?

 

Example = The Draft lottery,this handicapped the show even further by removing the next big thing Mr. Kennedy and the reliable veteran King Booker,taking away two main eventers is a foolish thing to do when you don't replace them properly.

 

Example = The cruiserweight division and tag divisions mean sod all,why should anyone care when the cruiser belt is rarely defended and when it is we just get a sub-five minute match which is nowhere near long enough for fans to warm to it and then you have the tag titles being worn by a team that was jobbing to the new Godwinns not so long ago....

 

Example = Vickie Guerrero's continuing and annoying presense on the show.

 

Yeah the show is better than TNA but that's because they've not staged blindfold all the titles on the line in an electrified ladder match yet.

 

Three good things about Smackdown.....Matt Hardy,Edge and MVP,the only guys getting the attention they deserve.

[Guest Adam Gill]

I was hugely dissapointed when I read this in Power Slam, although I'm not suprised really. Over the last few months I've noticed that they began to skip over various episodes of SmackDown in the brief reports at the start of the magazine, because "nothing of note happened" - according to them.

 

It's quite funny you know, because PS often laments Raw and Impact for not giving the matches enough time, being badly booked, and having ridiculous storylines - yet they get a show in SD which gives matches plenty of time, is superbly booked, and most of the time has sensible and easy to follow storylines, and they crap all over it!

 

Baffling . . .

[Guest Rog]

Wait Im confused, are Powerslam not covering Smackdown or TNA?

[etz 78]

I was hugely dissapointed when I read this in Power Slam, although I'm not suprised really. Over the last few months I've noticed that they began to skip over various episodes of SmackDown in the brief reports at the start of the magazine, because "nothing of note happened" - according to them.

 

It's quite funny you know, because PS often laments Raw and Impact for not giving the matches enough time, being badly booked, and having ridiculous storylines - yet they get a show in SD which gives matches plenty of time, is superbly booked, and most of the time has sensible and easy to follow storylines, and they crap all over it!

 

Baffling . . .

 

Not really. Just further proof that 99% of journalists are only out to slag something off. Ignore it if there's nothing bad to say. Thats the journalistic creed.

 

Only one kind worse and that's politicians.

[Guest Adam Gill]

Not really. Just further proof that 99% of journalists are only out to slag something off. Ignore it if there's nothing bad to say. Thats the journalistic creed.

 

Only one kind worse and that's politicians.

 

That's the thing though, I've read Power Slam for over 7 years (on and off) and I've always thought they were usually quite fair and praised things in wrestling when they deserved to be praised, and also slagged off things in wrestling when they deserved to be as well. Personally I wouldn't put them in the category of "99% of journalists are only to slag something off, and ignore it otherwise", as you mentioned.

 

Also, as I mentioned in my last post, reading their reasons for criticising Raw and particulary TNA in the last few months, I thought the current Smackdown product would be right up their street and lavished with praise.

 

That's why their lack of praise for SmackDown baffles me.

Edited July 1, 2007 by Adam Gill

[Dead Crow 370]

Power SLam has been awful for a couple of years now. This is easily their lowest point. They resort now simply to praising RoH, bitching about John Cena (which went out of fashion in 2006) and insulting Ric Flair and his age on every other page. It's pretty worthless reading.

 

Shame, really. They used to be excellent.

[Guest DOB]

I've found Power Slam to be quite disappointing over the last few months,one thing i've realised is that they're very biased and they expect their opinion to be you (the readers) opinion.

As said by OMAR they're sill better than Fighting Spirit though.

[Guest The Beltster]

Power Slam have (and have had throughout their history) a severe Keller-like anti-Hogan bias in their magazine, one which pisses me off not just because I'm a Hogan mark, but because its not fair 'journalism'. When you take up the post of editor of a magazine, unless you are a gimmick/kayfabe writer, you should report things without prejudice or bias. Power Slam are so anti-Hogan that not only are they unfair, but tons of what they have reported as facts about the man in the past have actually been complete falousies, yet the casual fan who buys the magazine now believe these 'facts' to actually BE facts. Its quite pathetic.

[Guest The Franchise]

Pro Wrestling Illistrated has always been my mag over the years.

 

Powerslam is a joke anyway.:good222:

[Guest DOB]

I've only got into PS over the last 3 years,can someone tell me does it do ok sales wise and what was the magazine like during the Attitude and Monday night War eras?