Opinion - Belt defended weekly?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Trip in the Head, Nov 30, 2013.

  1. #1 Trip in the Head, Nov 30, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2013
    I always thought it would be a cool idea if they had a belt that got defended weekly on RAW. It could help some new guys get attention and if someone held the title long enough I would think he would earn some respect amongst the fans. It would be difficult to hold onto week after week I think. What do you guys think?
  2. Big E should defend his belt weekly in the five count challenge.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. It'd be a cool idea if they kept it restrained to being defended on TV only (never on PPV.... except for maybe as the pre-show match for the Night Of Champions PPV, just to still keep with the gimmick that all championships are defended at that event.) But then even with the WHC possibly on the way out, I feel there's enough titles as it is.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. #4 Trip in the Head, Nov 30, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2013
    Yeah def no PPV defenses. Even with the WHC on the way out its too many? Once the WHC is gone that leaves the US, IC, Tag, and WWE. Plus Divas makes 5. I guess thats enough. I would replace the US title with this fake RAW one I suppose.
  5. Yea I'd be down for this. Would make me want to pay attention to RAW.
  6. That's a lie. Nothing would make you pay attention to RAW, lmao.
    • Like Like x 2
  7. *Sigh* So true. Unless Batista.
  8. Clique is over. loljk lub u
  9. They tried it in TNA last year with the TV title (ya know... defending the TV title on TV...), and it worked for a little while because their roster was so bloated that a lot of guys don't get on TV every week (while Raw usually has the same cast of characters) and they couldn't keep it interesting and just had Devon squash the same jobber every week (no reason to think WWE would do it better), plus Devon got really stale from the overexposure from being on TV every week (a problem most people on Raw already have). Based on that, no.

    But then again, it'll replace one of the pointless segments Raw has on that show already... but what will the title symbolize? Even if the belt's meaningless I suppose most people will be interested in a TV title defense over the pseudo-jobber matches we have on there already, so it won't cause any harm. We on the internet will complain about flat segments, but we're already doing that.
  10. They'd he then have to scrap the IC or US title IMO. Why not, anything that serves a purpose is better than matches that don't lead to a feud/angle.
  11. I've always liked the idea of the TV title. The biggest problem in WWE would be to have to defend it on Raw, Main Event and Smackdown every week. That is quite a schedule.
    What would make more sense to me would be to go back to the idea of a championship needing to be defended within 30 days. I hate that guys can hold on to a belt as long as they want without having to defend it except maybe at PPVs.
    If you want the belts to mean more, even the lesser ones, I think the best way to go about that would be to have all of them defended at some point within a month's time. That way you keep "pressure" on the reigning champion, and there is some kind of drama there to elicit interest of some kind in all of the belts.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. This would be a good idea, but only IF WWE brought back the brand split. If you have a guy defend a title three times a week every week, there is no way the guy can hold onto the belt for three-four months on such a rigorous schedule.
  13. I totally agree with this the Mid-Card titles should be defended weekly or they should have one new one that is defended weekly
  14. I was only talking about the belt being defended on RAW in the OP. Call it the RAW championship I guess.
  15. Hm, no need for that. I don't feel like they would work it well. Instead they should focus on improving the state of the current midcard belts they already have.