Dashing Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 You know, like a TV championship or something for the lads on Superstars to fight over. There was always the European back in the day, something similar could work now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vito Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Jesus, no. The company already has enough meaningless belts that only get defended when it's time to put them on someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashing Posted January 16, 2011 Author Share Posted January 16, 2011 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)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackie Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Right now the company are struggling to book anything other than the 2 Main Event titles as the other week it seems they wanted to push ziggler and then realised he had a belt that they needed to get rid of first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew "the ref" coyne Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 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. Â 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. Â 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 More sharing options...
Xavi Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 They need to make the titles they've got already feel like they mean something first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 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 More sharing options...
dangerously420 Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I do not think that there should be any more titles added. They have enough at the current time. Â 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 More sharing options...
RepoMan Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I honestly can't understand how anyone could think for a second that WWE needs more titles at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fye Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 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 More sharing options...
ScotstounsOwn Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 daniel bryan hasnt defended his belt in weeks, why create anotehr title for a mid card guy to get ignored Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinky Dad Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I've missed these Emperorseb...erm I mean Dashing Poll votes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Eddie Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 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 More sharing options...
Paid Members neil's bitch Posted January 16, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 16, 2011 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. Â 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. Â 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 More sharing options...
PSF Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.