Jump to content

Does WWE need more Championships?


Dashing

Does WWE need more Championships?  

86 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Personally I feel the guys on Superstars are too segregated from the main roster. I.e. if your on Superstars it means your defenite "C show" calibre. I personally feel that they need a few upper mid carders and maybe even main event stars (even if they are just destroying jobbers) on it just to create the illusion that the guys on Superstars are actually part of the main roster.

 

Back on point, I feel that a title belt that is exclusively defended on Superstars would further this segregation. A belt that is competed for between Primo, Hawkins, Chavo and masters? Wow. Nothing says your a big nobody by winning that belt.

 

Outside of superstars.... until WWE can successfully manage their midcard belts and their tag belts... there is no need for another belt at all. Currently we have Kofi with no clear challengers, real throw away champs holding the tag belts and Daniel Bryan having entered "quiet time" after a fantastic quest for the US title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
So we're just ignoring the fact that Daniel Bryan and Dolph Ziggler have both defended their championships for months on end (before Dolph lost his last week)?

defending them doesnt make them meaningfull. theres no desire to have them. theres no presteige to having them. just have more emphasis on the ones there, ie #1 contender matches/ battle royals etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think that there should be any more titles added. They have enough at the current time.

 

I would think it would be good if they had a United States/Intercontinental title defences or a Tag Team Title defence on Superstars to give the show a bigger feel and to make people care about the show more. The only reason i watch WWE Superstars is because its on Sky One and it gives me something to do to occupy my Sunday morning when i'm lying in bed hungover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly can't understand how anyone could think for a second that WWE needs more titles at the moment.

 

I was equally astounded at the question, what they need to do is have plenty of TV defences in my opinion, instead of the Usos beating the tag champs for no reason. For me any time a (non-main event) singles champ is in a singles match the belt should be defended, same goes for tag champs, if they are in a tag match then they should have the belts on the line

 

if the threat of belt changes were on TV then would more people tune in in case they missed something? I dont know but the belts are just props now more than ever before and its a shame, the IC belt used to be prestigious, now nobody seems to care about it, having it retired and un-retired etc didnt help at all of course

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we're just ignoring the fact that Daniel Bryan and Dolph Ziggler have both defended their championships for months on end (before Dolph lost his last week)?

defending them doesnt make them meaningfull. theres no desire to have them. theres no presteige to having them. just have more emphasis on the ones there, ie #1 contender matches/ battle royals etc

 

Daniel Bryan had a great feud with Miz for the IC title, but who has he feuded with since then? The Bellas? A fun but essentially pointless Raw Vs Smackdown series with Dolph? A two week deal with Ted?

 

They always do this with the mid-card. They hit on something good and someone gets some momentum, then they forget about them and don't follow it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Back in the days of the European title there was: WWE, Womens, IC, Euro, Tag Team, Lightweight and Hardcore titles. Thats 7 titles although back then that 3 or 4 titles directly linked to specific Divisions such as womens/Tag teams............back in the day when we had tag teams. So that worked, only because we had Teams, specific lightweights, a womens division and specific (for a time at least) hardcore division guys.

 

At WWE's very worst we had: WWE, World, ECW, Womens, Divas, WWE Tag Team, World Tag Team, Cruiserweight, IC and US titles. Thats 10 titles, 2 for a crap womens division. 2 for a tag division with hardly any tag teams........the ECW title for the third brand specifically, and for a time the cruiser belt. So that went from 3 titles back in the late 90's (WWE,IC,Euro) for the more serious singles guys to 5 (World,WWE,ECW,IC,US) for a much smaller roster also, and it jsut didnt work.

 

WWE are looking to drop down to alot less titles, unifying the womens and tag teams titles , (as well as dropping the ECW title) plus i had heard storys of having the one world title also. It makes it better to have one set of main world titles and the undercard titles for raw/smackdown/superstars etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the roster split ended, then the Hardcore or European Title could work well again, but only if they unified both the world titles and the Int'l & US Titles. Having a belt that guys like Primo, Masters, Ryder could fued over could work well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...