30-Day non title defense clause.

[Dilligaf]

Back in the day if a champion didnt defend his/her title at least once every 30 days, he/she would automatically be stripped of the title, whatever happend to that clause.

Im asking this because im pretty sure CM Punk hasnt defended since Survivor Series when he defeated Cena & Ryback in the triple threat after the interference from The Shield.

And with CM Punk not being cleared to wrestle until the 7th January's Raw & to defend against Ryback, it will have been 50 days he hast defended it.

Although saying this, he could have defended on the house shows before he got injured, in that case it will have been over 30 days since he has had his surgery.

But im also thinking along with many of you (maybe) if Rock wins the title at the Royal Rumble, he wont defend it until Wrestlemania against whoever wins the RR or whoever wins the No1 contenders match at Elimination Chamber (should the winner of the RR go after the WHC)

Thoughts?

Should the WWE board strip any champion if they havent defended in over 30 days or should the champion relinqish the title for a long lay-off with injury?

 

[King Patrick Star]

I agree. I think the “Board of Directors” should strip any Champion who has not defended their Championship within 30 days. Then again, I also think that Champions should only have Championship matches and never ever have a “Non-Title” match ever again. At the 2012 Tribute To The Troops, John Cena should have won his 4th United States Championship, and brought out the US Spinner Belt!! Okay, I’m thinking out loud. I do agree about the 30 Day Defense Clause being reinstated and reinforced.

 

[GI Cake]

The 30-day defense clause is only useful if you need to strip the title off a guy without having him job to somebody. As it turns out, the WWE wants to keep the title on Punk until who knows when because they haven't removed the title from him yet. Then again, this the WWE, the booking for the last few months have been down right goofy.

 

[Slash-LN]

I could be 100% wrong but I thought Punk actually mentioned something about this a few weeks ago.

Anyway it's just one of those things they tend to utilize when it's convenient for them to. Otherwise we aren't supposed to remember it exists.

Kind of like how someone not long ago started a thread about how they used to announce time limits before the matches.

 

[Dirk]

In thirty years' time, when most of us are "old crusties" and Flair and Hogan have passed on, if someone mentions Punk, we'll talk about THAT shoot, then about the title reign he's enjoying now. We bear witness to a little part of WWE history.

That means that they can't half-ass this reign and it can't just fade away. When Punk loses, it should be at a big PPV. The injury means that at this point they either have to strip it off Punk now or (more likely) give another long run with it to compensate for the lapse. I'm talking at least two months, people.

If Punk does end up being champ for 500 days, I don't want to see him win it for at least two years, right after I don't want to see him on TV for a month. I had my fill of Punk, I can't anymore...