During radio interview in Australia, Dolph Ziggler spoke about three hours Raw and much more. Here are the highlights….
Radio host Matt de Groot: Three-hour Raws - is it too long?
Ziggler: No. Here's why. We have so many Superstars who aren't even on TV every week, or at all. We have so many great guys that we have that are fighting for 30 seconds on TV or to be in a backstage shot for a couple of seconds. I think with three hours, it's going to be that much better to start establishing new Superstars... I think in the long run, that's a much better idea for WWE so you can start having kids relate to different characters.
Matt de Groot: Are you finding it harder to keep the live audience engaged for the three hours?
Ziggler: I don't think so. If you're good at what you do, they're going to enjoy it no matter what. Whether I'm in the first segment or the last segment, or the middle - wherever I am in the show - I really want the spotlight, I want to steal the show, I want to be the main event. And, you make it a point to do that. But, it depends. It is a longer show for the crowd - I'm not going to pretend it's not an extra hour of wrestling for the crowd. That's a lot. But, if you make it entertaining, if you make it good, it's going to blow by.
Matt de Groot: Having two main championships - does it dilute the impact now that the brands have molded back together?
Ziggler: I don't think it dilutes it all. Maybe in a different time when there were 20 Superstars, it made sense to have one championship. Now we have 70 and 100 in Developmental and people waiting backstage; we have too much talent and so many television shows with WWE - almost every day of the week - that I think we need two separate World and WWE Championships. Also, it gives something else to shoot for for other Superstars. It's not like, 'Oh, Punk is in the middle of Day 400, and I'm at the bottom of the ladder, how am I ever going to get this?' You always have an option; you can have two different champions. I think that's just fine in this era."