ShareThis Page

LaBar: One title would make sense for WWE

| Sunday, Dec. 1, 2013, 10:27 p.m.

WWE finally could be going back to one world title.

In December, WWE Champion Randy Orton will go up against John Cena, who hold the World Heavyweight Championship.

I don't think the titles are meant to be unified in this December meeting between Orton and Cena. There has been confusion since the match was announced. Listening to the sound clips used in the promotion for the match and WWE's website posting stories looking back in history, it seems the winner of the match at TLC will hold both titles.

Having one title is smart. WWE is bad at protecting the value of titles anymore. This is largely due to the over-saturation of programming.

CM Punk's 434 days as WWE Champion from November 2011 to January 2013 was great for the WWE Championship but the other title was still second rate. The other title currently is held by Cena.

Cena's run so far as World Heavyweight Champion has done good things for SmackDown's viewership. Brand extension is no longer going on in WWE, but there is still some unspoken separation where only the WHC is focused on the Friday program. SmackDown is the number two show, and the WHC is the number two title.

Number two world title seems like an awkward statement. A world title should be the top title. Again, unification is wise but execution is just as important in getting to that final destination.

If there is going to be a unification match, it seems WrestleMania in April would be the most appropriate venue. But who is it between?

Orton and Cena are the two wrestlers WWE has the most invested in as well as the two heavily rumored for a unification at WrestleMania. This wouldn't be good.

I don't want the main event of a December TLC pay-per-view to be the main event of WrestleMania 30 three months later. I don't care if you substitute the gimmick of tables, ladders and chairs out for the stipulation of a unified world title. There is still something wrong with that.

Another thing wrong is having what should be a monumental match in WWE's history and not including the guy who is the most popular in WWE involved.

Daniel Bryan doesn't have to win the unified title, but he only helps the whole situation. A unified title match should feature three, if not four superstars, in one match.

As mentioned, the WrestleMania main event needs to be different than the TLC pay-per-view. Adding guys like Bryan and Punk would elevate the importance. It's a fair situation to put the guy the audience was clamoring to see as he chased his dreams of being WWE Champion.

If WWE wants Orton or Cena to be the unified champion leaving WrestleMania, that's fine. There is still no harm in adding two fan favorites to entice the audience. If anything, WWE can look at it as another chance to rub Bryan's nose in the fact that to them he isn't a big league player on Orton or Cena's level. Rub all you want, but at least give the guy a WrestleMania main event payday while making money off his fans thinking he could win. Seems to make sense.

Title unification is likely coming and will fit the change in times. The WWE Network looks like it finally will launch, possibly before WrestleMania. If this happens, this increases the importance of WWE's weekly programs in RAW and SmackDown. The weekly programs help sell the network and the network will feature the pay-per-views as part of the whole package.

The times are changing. Plus, WWE's roster lacks enough credible stars to have two world titles and two mid-card titles.

Credible stars — an important element to a wrestling company.

Cena, Orton, Punk and Bryan are the four WWE's consistently had, whether they like it or not, in this era. WrestleMania is filled with part-time stars and attractions like Brock Lesnar, The Undertaker and whoever else makes a big money return for a WrestleMania match. If you have four credible names and want to have one unified world title, it seems logical to put them all in one big match.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.