[Rocky_e7]

I was wondering was there ever a period when smackdown scored higher telivision ratings than RAW? from 2002-2004 Smackdown often had names as big as on RAW like Brock Lesnar and Kurt Angle and was considered a superior product by a lot of fans but has the show ever achevied higher tv ratings?

 

[Here To There]

Probably never bigger, but better in 2002-2003 by a long shot.

 

[Oxidamus]

Yea, right after every big shot on RAW left. When Lesnar was the big deal, really. Other than that, no.

 

[8 Pound Gecko]

Quality wise-more often then not

Ratings wise-i don't know

 

[Patrick Bateman]

During the ruthless agression era.

 

[James Curran]

I think during 2000 Smackdown was quite big.

 

[Rock316AE]

Since the Draft, April 2002-February 2003, that's it. But it was on the same level of RAW in 2003.

 

[Rocky_e7]

Since the Draft, April 2002-February 2003, that's it. But it was on the same level of RAW in 2003.

The ratings where atually higher in this period?

 

[A-C-P]

At times when the brand spilt first started up until late winter/early spring 2003 you could argue it was. Since then no Raw has always been treated as it was more important than SD, with some exceptions here and there.

 

[CokaCoola]

I always prefered SmackDown during the first couple of Finlay years. Solid bunch of wrestlers on the show during that period.

 

[Rock316AE]

The ratings where atually higher in this period?

Not always, but they were neck to neck and SD beat RAW a few times, don't forget that RAW is a live show...In terms of star power, investment and quality, SD was bigger.

 

[robertdeniro]

In 2002-2003,SD was a taped show and the ratings were around 3.0 to 3.7 .Since Raw is a live show i would say SD was bigger in 2002-2003.

 

[ddp]

ratings wise hell no. but in terms of quality i thing the ruthless aggression era the product on smack down was better till wm of 2004.

 

[Jinn DMZ]

I don't think it was ever bigger than Raw, but the only time you could even make a case for it was when Brock Lesnar was the WWE Undisputed Champion and went to Smackdown. Even when Triple H was given the new World Heavyweight Championship, Raw wasn't nearly as good as Smackdown during that period.

 

[Rock316AE]

ratings wise hell no. but in terms of quality i thing the ruthless aggression era the product on smack down was better till wm of 2004.

I just checked in September 2002, SD September 12-19 beat RAW September 09-16, 3.5 to 3.4 and 3.7 to 3.4, so yeah it happened a few times during that time.

 

[the modern myth]

In 2003 Smackdown was far superior to Raw, and arguably bigger. Hulk Hogan, Brock Lesnar, Kurt Angle, Undertaker, Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, Rey Mysterio, John Cena ... the roster was strong and there were some great matches. Raw at the time always seemed a bit crap in comparisson (Kevin Nash, Scott Steiner, Triple H - who wasn't performing very well at all that year).

 

[ryzombie619]

I think during 2000 Smackdown was quite big.

Yes, it was really big during 2000 and 2001. I remember they would have buried alive matches, plus, there was no such thing as exclusive wrestlers on certain shows. Everyone who was on RAW was also on Smackdown!. I think they really killed it with the whole draft because they purposely put all the best talent on RAW. All the hottest divas like Trish, Candice, Torrie, Stacy were on RAW. Whenever the Rock or Austin returned, they'd be on RAW. Triple H, Goldberg, Steiner, Hardy, RVD, Jericho were all on RAW. HBK and Nash as well.

 

[TheVladMan]

During part of the Ruthless Aggression Era, SmackDown was on the same level as Raw.

 

[That Guy]

Ratings wise Raw was always the number 1 brand and it was presented as such, the WWE's franchise and 'baby'. Product wise Smackdown was superior until pretty much Wrestlemania XX than after that it was still above average but Raw started picking up and from there it wasn't better than Raw, and once Batista came over to Smackdown and JBL left things went downhill and fast.

 

[-XERO-]

2002-2003