Smackdown Live is consistently praised by WWE fans for being the better show as compared to RAW. Our polls have shown that fans on a weekly basis say that Smackdown Live was the better show. So why is that? Why is Smackdown Live more popular with fans, even though Vince McMahon is still in charge of both?

Mick Foley recently made an appearance on the Lilian Garcia: Making Their Way To The Ring podcast. During the interview he spoke on a wide variety of topics about his wrestling career and his current role as the General Manager of RAW.

Foley blames the 3 hour length of RAW as the reason why fans prefer Smackdown Live on a weekly basis:

“Even though SmackDown has been kind of like the internet darling, I believe that if they had three hours instead of two they would find out that it’s tough to be a darling when you’ve got that massive three-hour anchor around your neck”

Foley brings up an interesting debate. Is the writing substantially better on Smackdown compared to RAW? Or is it strictly the length of the show that makes it the more popular choice?

[irp posts=”18981″ name=”Paul Heyman and JBL Address Critics That Say RAW Should Only Be 2 Hours”]

Is the writing that much better on Smackdown or is it because they have less time to fill that they are able to put the best product out? Would RAW be better than Smackdown if it was a 2 hour show since they have the stronger roster?

Let us know what you think in the comment section below. Do you agree or disagree with Foley?