Talk:Triple Crown Championship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Triple Crown Championship article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject Professional wrestling This article is part of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, you can visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Archive

[edit] ECW Triple Crown

RVD is a ECW Triple Crown. The current version of the ECW World Championship DOES count as part of the ECW Triple Crown. The ECW Triple Crown just means winning the ECW World Title, ECW TV Title, and ECW Tag Team Titles, and the current incarnation of the ECW Title DOES count towards it. Lrrr IV 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Look through the archives. 声援 -- The Hybrid 22:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really, someone said the current ECW Title should be part of the ECW triple crown and you said no. It's the same title as before, and IS part of the ECW triple crown. End of story, I would change it myself but my account is too new to edit semi-protected pages. WWE can do what they want with the titles and the current titles/champions count the same as anybody who held the belt from 1993-2001. Lrrr IV 00:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
No, the ECW TC is from the Independent Promotion, not the WWE Brand. It does not count, as they are 2 completely different companies. End of story. 声援 -- The Hybrid 00:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The ECW TC is winning all three of the ECW Titles, whether they were part of the promotion or the brand, end of story. Actually, the ECW section shouldn't even be listed at all since ECW never referred to it as a triple crown. Lrrr IV 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Lrrr IV, find a source. Darrenhusted 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For what, ECW not having a triple crown? Or Hybrid trying to keep RVD from being listed here? There has been no evidence provided that the ECW Title no longer counts towards the ECW Triple Crown (the entire ECW section could be removed as original research since there was never officially a TC). Just because a title changes promotions doesn't stop it from being counted towards records, and the ECW reigns since June 2006 count the same as ECW reigns from 1993-2001. Unless Hybrid can provide some evidence from WWE or PWI, his opinion on this carries no more weight than mine or anyone else (maybe even less since there is no logical reason to stop counting it). Lrrr IV 02:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Find a source for the current ECW heavyweight title being the same as the Indy ECW title. The ECW "triple crown" is now historic, much like the WCW "triple crown" is historic and the AWA "triple crown" is historic. The fact that none of those promotions never used the term Triple Crown does not mean we have to remove the ECW section, but it does mean you have to stop adding RVD, so for what I hope is the last time he is not a ECW triple crown holder. Do you understand the other point of view on this? Darrenhusted 02:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no WCW Triple Crown, let's get that out of the way. I haven't seen any source that says the ECW Title ISN'T the same, sources saying it's the same title: WWE.com and Wrestling-Titles.com among others. The ECW Title is still active, meaning the ECW TC is still active. I have provided evidence supporting my side, no one has provided evidence opposing me. I haven't added RVD in yet (I can't because my account is too new), but I hope someone else does. Rob Van Dam is a ECW TV champion, there is no denying that (except by fanboys who want to pretend that the titles died in 2001). Lrrr IV 02:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn't about a continuation of the titles. The original ECW promotion died in 2001. Whether or not this title is a continuation of the original is irrelevant. You can't earn a TC for a promotion that doesn't exist anymore. That's just stupid. Also, after your account is old enough to add RVD you'll get reverted anyway if there isn't a consensus, meaning that there will be an edit war involving you against 2 other users. You'll get yourself blocked for the WP:3RR faster than you can say PINECONE. 声援 -- The Hybrid 05:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The ECW section shouldn't be even listed at all since it is original research, which is not allowed. Before you can argue against that, it's no different than you saying the current title doesn't count towards the TC (which doesn't exist). Saying it doesn't count is OR, and is just plain silly. Rob Van Dam is the 5th ECW TC, end of story (unless you can find something from WWE or PWI saying otherwise). Lrrr IV 05:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The burden of proof falls on the person wanting to insert information into the article. Unless you provide proof that the new ECW Title counts, then nothing will be added. We don't have to prove that it doesn't, you have to prove that it does. I'm going to remove all mention of RVD so as not to be a hypocrite, but come up with a source for your side or stop entirely. 声援 -- The Hybrid 05:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Who said the burden of proof is on me? I already said there is no ECW TV at all, so of coarse I can't find proof. Just like there would be no proof of ANY of those ECW TC champs since the entire section is original research. This is one of those cases where either the entire section should be removed, or you "open the floodgate" and let anyone who wins all 3 titles be in. So the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that WWE/ECW/PWI ever considered there to be a ECW TC and not just something made up by fans. Lrrr IV 05:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing has sources. You're asking to blank the entire page. 声援 -- The Hybrid 05:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
No i'm not, and you know it. Both WWE and TNA have said many times they have a Triple Crown, so both have plenty of sources. There was never a ECW TC though, that is something made up by fans (and thus is original resarch and not allowed). Lrrr IV 06:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
A TCC is simply a term used to describe someone who has won a World, Second Tier, and Tag Team title for a specific promotion. We don't treat the accomplishment as official unless the promotion honors it officially, as the WWE and TNA do. In the case of ECW and WCW, we do not treat it as official. We simply list the people who have pulled it off and nothing more. However, the definition I just gave you eliminates RVD from the ECW TC, as WWECW is a new promotion. 声援 -- The Hybrid 06:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Unless you have a source for that, it's all original research and should be tagged as such. To me, a TCC is someone who has won 3 specific titles (regardless of the promotion the belts are defended in). Rob Van Dam meets this requriement by winning all 3 ECW Titles in the ECW TC. Lrrr IV 06:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Notice the maintenance tag at the top of the article. The entire article doesn't link to any sources but the WWE's title history, so all of it is marked as OR. Most of this stuff is just determined by convention and/or consensus. I don't foresee this being any different. We'll probably end up having to take a poll on this issue, but as you have mentioned whatever happens is OR. Really the only reason I'm not deleting the section as you ask is because I don't want to deal with the backlash. It scares me. Most people want this section, and the guy who deletes it gets to deal with the complaining. 声援 -- The Hybrid 06:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I can link sources for WWE and TNA, the others can be deleted. I personally think the ECW section should be there, but only if RVD is included (otherwise it's a useless and incomplete section). Lrrr IV 06:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's take a step back here.

The ECW TC really did exist, as it was mentioned often by Joey Styles during the original run.

Now as far as RVD goes, it's like this:

Rob never won the title when ECW was an independant entity, he won it as part of WWE's ECW brand...apples and oranges.

It is the same title, because WWE purchased everything in ECW--lock, stock, and barrel. The Title however is WWE property now, so (in theory) it belongs in the WWE TC (from RVD on) as an equal to the WWE and World Titles. (That's a whole other arguement for another time.)

The same goes for the U.S. Title, While all former Champions are recognized, only the champs from Chris Kanyon on are eligible for the WWE TC as that is when the belt became WWE property. (All of this is under the pretense of the U.S. Belt becoming part of the TC...again another fight for another time.)

Bottom line...when a title becomes WWE property, it (in theory) becomes part of the WWE Triple Crown, it's earlier history (while recognized) belongs to it's previous incarnation.Ohgltxg 7:46 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have stated this before and i'll say it again, the ECW TC (not that it exists) continues to exist today. The current ECW Title DOES count towards the ECW TC. TJ Spyke 06:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Anothe thing, I don't think anywhere here can say Van Dam ISN'T a TC winner since that would be original research. The burden of proof is on you to find evidence that RVD isn't considered a ECW TC winner. TJ Spyke 06:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't prove a negative TJ. Find a source, and leave RVD off until you do. Otherwise it is OR. And I have no idea how you can say the ECW TC exists today when the TV and Tag titles don't exist. Darrenhusted 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, TC only exist within promotions. Let's look at it this way. ECW is a brand now, just like RAW, just like Smackdown. Therefore, as Ohg stated, it in theory is part of the WWE TC. ECW TC is for the actual promotion. How can RVD be considered an ECW TC if he won the ECW title in WWE? That's like saying someone who wins the WWE US Championship after having won previously the WCW Tag Team and Heavyweight Championship is a WCW Triple Crown. While the title may be the same and share the same lineage, it's a different promotion. The whole problem here is the ECW name. ECW TC champions can only have been champions in the promotion itself, not in the brand. The brand and the promotion are very different. Anakinjmt 14:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That is not a fact. A TC is winning a set of 3 titles, regardless of the promotion. Winning the WWE US Title would not count towards the WCW TV (which actually never existed) since it's no longer the WCW US Title. Darren, it's the same way someone can still win the WWE Grand Slam, it's just limited to people who have already won the ECW TV and ECW Tag Team Titles. It's OR to say RVD ISN'T a ECW TV champ. Of coarse, if no one provides prood that a ECW TV ever existed then the entire ECW section will be removed. TJ Spyke 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Joey Styles referred to a ECW Triple Crown during numerous broadcasts, so it's not original research. The question posed by Lrrr IV was whether or not RVD is a ECW TCC, and he is not. The OR tag is a smokescreen, the page should remain ECW TC, but RVD cannot be added until a verifiable source confirms that he is an ECW TCC, which his win last year does not make him. And if there is not currently an ECW TV title ot ECW Tag title then the entire of this argument discussion is balanced only on RVD. He is not an ECW TCC, and the ECW TC is not OR. Darrenhusted 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have an actual source (i.e. something others can check)? Also, you may not consider RVD a TC champ but he IS. Winning a TC just means winning 3 specific titles, which Van Dam HAS. Pretending otherwise is ignorant, and the burden of proof is on you to show it does not count. He has won all three ECW Titles, making him a ECW TC winner (what promotion the titles exist in is irrelevent). TJ Spyke 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

ECW as an independent entity died on April 11, 2001. The final Champion under the old regime was Rhino. All of ECW's assets were then bought by WWE. When ECW was re-activated, it was done under the sanction of WWE. Thus, beginning with Rob Van Dam, all ECW World Champions are now under the WWE umbrella and not that of the old ECW. Same Championship, Different Promotion. RVD won the title as a WWE sanctioned belt, not as an ECW sanctioned belt. That is about the best way I can explain this. Ohgltxg 08:31 20 February, 2007 (UTC)

You nailed it, SAME CHAMPIONSHIP. Also (to whoever is doing it), stop removing the OR tag without providing proof. TJ Spyke 00:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
TJ, you seemed to have missed the point. Same championship, yes, the point was, DIFFERENT PROMOTION. You can't win one promotions TC in an entirely different promotion. Bmg916 Speak to Me 00:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
And no one has provided any proof to counter my arguement (or common sense). A TC is winning a set of 3 titles, it doesn't matter the promotion these titles are defended in. TJ Spyke 00:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does matter, a TC is winning a set of three titles under the umbrella of the same promotion, hence the names "WWE Triple Crown", "WCW Triple Crown", etc. Hence why US Champions don't qualify for the WCW Triple Crown. Bmg916 Speak to Me 00:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Those refer to the titles, not the promotion. I don't think we are gonna be able to resolve this, neither side is providing any proof (only beliefs). Van Dam is a ECW TC winner, I know it's true but you don't believe it. Of coarse, the entire ECW section will be removed unless someone provides proof of it existig. TJ Spyke 01:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we're never going to agree, as unfortunate as that is, I can suggest that someone write to PWI and see if they can clear all this up. Bmg916 Speak to Me 01:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If it'll help, think of it this way. In the ECW of old, it was simply the ECW World Heavyweight Championship. However, NOW, it would be the WWE ECW World Championship. Still called the ECW Championship, yes, but now WWE goes in front of it. It's obviously not referred to that on TV or on WWE.com or in magazines, but it's like calling the WHC the WWE WHC: it's not called that, but that's what it is, essentially. So, Rob Van Dam has won the ECW Tag Team title, the ECW Television title, and the WWE ECW World Championship. Two ECW promotion titles, one WWE title that shares the same name. Under this reasoning and logic, it is impossible for Van Dam to be an ECW TC, when he's only held two ECW titles and a WWE ECW title. ECW as a promotion is gone. It exists as a brand now under the WWE, and any other ECW titles that might be revived would be considered the same way: WWE ECW Television Champion, WWE ECW Tag Team Champion. I wish we could call Van Dam an ECW TC, but unless WWE or PWI or some other reliable source calls him an ECW TC, we have to go with our best guess, and under this reasoning, he's not. Anakinjmt 03:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
WHAT? "WWE" is not part of the title name. They have NEVER referred to "WWE" in the name, nor is the WWE logo anywhere on the belt (whereas the WHC does have the WWE logo on it). I have presented clear cut evidence of why Van Damn would be a ECW TC champ if the ECW TC existed. TJ Spyke 00:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been watching this page for a few days, and I've had to nominate the article for deletion. Find out why by clicking here Davnel03 17:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You have had to nominate it? Why? Because you don't agree with others. I suggest you put the Grand Slam article up for deletion as well then since that article flows from this one. Darrenhusted 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it won't be a major loss if it gets deleted. The whole thing is almost completely unsourced anyway. It could stand to be rewritten from the ground up, fact-by-fact. 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • If it looks like it will be deleted, I will put it on a subpage (so it's off of the mainspace) so that the info isn't lost. TJ Spyke 01:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you believe that these sources exist after all of the searching that has been done? That's like believing in faries. 声援 -- The Hybrid 05:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

RVD is an ECW Triple Crown Champion. According to definition, a Triple Crown winner is someone who won a World Title, a Secondary title, and a Tag Title. According to WWE.com, it lists all of RVD’s “Career Highlights", listing all of the titles he won. He is, by definition, a WWE Grand Slam Champion as well as an ECW Triple Crown Champion. It says: "Career Highlights: ECW World Champion, ECW Television Champion, ECW Tag Team Champion, WWE Champion, Intercontinental Champion, WWE World Tag Team Champion, WWE Tag Team Champion, European Champion, Hardcore Champion, unified the Intercontinental Championship with the Hardcore and European Championships". Right at the beginning it show his ECW titles with no mention of “WWE”/ECW World and “ECW”/ECW TV and “ECW”/ECW Tag titles. I don’t know how to insert a link, but here’s the web address: http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/superstars/rvd/profile/. Although, we know what it is, there is no “Official” listing of TCC or GSC or even any mention of it on all of the Superstars Career Highlights on their Bio pages in WWE.com. It’s all OR, but it all makes sense. Look at Chris Benoit’s page for example. He is clearly a WWE and WCW TCC and GSC. Does the WCW TV Title count toward a GSC in WCW?? Of course it does, logically, but not officially. Does it say he's a WWE/WCW TCC/GSC?? Not officially, but you know he is. It's Logic vs. Official. It’s Natural Law vs. Government Law. Comments anyone??--Prince Patrick 16:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A: WCW never HAD a TC, so that's a moot point. Plus, he never won the WCW championship OR the World Championship (as it was called when held by the Rock after Survivor Series '01). B: He can only be an ECW TC if he won it IN THE PROMOTION! It doesn't MATTER if there is now a brand called ECW; as huge ECW fans of old will be glad to tell you, ECW the BRAND and ECW the PROMOTION are VERY different. Title may be called the same, but he won the ECW title in WWE; therefore, he did not win the ECW PROMOTION TC. And that is what is in the article: the ECW promotion Triple Crown. Not the overall organizations called ECW triple crown, the ECW promotion triple crown. And, if you looked on a contract for the original ECW title, it's legal name would be the ECW World Heavyweight Championship; look at it now in WWE, and it'd be the WWE ECW World Championship. They don't call it that, as it would sound ridiculous, but legally, that's what it's called. Same with the WHC: its legal name is the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Anakinjmt 20:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a comment for you, Prince Patrick. Find the part on his bio where it state the following "Rob Van Dam is an ECW Triple Crown Champion" then there will be no further discussion. He fits the established parameters for a WWE Triple Crown/Grand Slam champion. There are sources which verify that for other wrestler and Van Dam has won those same titles. There is no such support for the ECW TC, unless it says so on his WWE.com bio. And if it doesn't say then accept your own source and stop trying to push this. Darrenhusted 00:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess you’re officially right. It doesn't really matter to me. I know what he accomplished, promotion or brand. The point I'm making is it doesn’t say, ECW Tag Team Champion, ECW TV Champion, and “WWE” ECW Champion, it just says ECW Champion. WWE doesn’t have an official listing of TCC or GSC, but you’re right, for now, just like some of you people WERE right about the WCW/World Heavyweight Title being "separate". I'll just wait till the WWE proves me right...again.--Prince Patrick 14:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh

I quit. I'm not going to edit or discuss this page anymore. I get too angry. This isn't worth it. I'm taking off my watchlist. Good luck everyone. 声援 -- The Hybrid 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

The descision for the TCC was 8 keep to 6 delete, the Grand Slam was 12 keep to 6 delete. Both articles stay for the moment. Darrenhusted 22:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I restored the AFD back, it needs to go the full 7 days, and have an admin check it over and make a decision. Just because there are more keep votes doesn't mean that the article is automatically kept. Booshakla 08:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
And I reclosed it. AfDs only go for 5 days, and there was no established consensus. Farewell, 声援 -- The Hybrid 03:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
As I've stated before: votes don't matter, the arguements for or against the article do. This article is alot of original research (and those tags are likely to remain on the article for a while I bet). RobJ1981 06:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Booshakala, I was just relaying the result becasue the afd box had gone. RobJ1981, the arguments for and against were prety much of the "this is OR get rid/this exists find more sources" variety. I added the OR tags because I think that improving this article is better than deleting it. This and the Grand Slam page need a lot of work, but that's what Wikipedia is about. I just hope that WP:PW can get a handle on this and get these two articles tamed. Darrenhusted 12:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What sort of work do they need? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mlsq42 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Verifiable sources would be a good start. Darrenhusted 14:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For what, the title wins? People being called a Triple Crown Champion by the WWE? The concept? Forgive me, I'm new at this.Mlsq42 02:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing, titles, dates of wins, the concept of a triple crown, those acknowledged, what is not a TCC. Darrenhusted 23:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The OVW Triple Crown

SilentRage decided to blank the OVW section, stating "OVW is irrellivant". I applaud him for being bold but I do't feel that blanking a section without discussion is constructive and if there is one thing the TCC talk page is renowned for it's long discussions. I would rather not have to keep reverting so I will state what I think. I have never seen any OVW wrestling, but I know that it breeds a good deal of the current WWE roster, so if OVW by itself is notable and we have pages for all three titles then a table to inform those who have an interest of who has won the three titles should be kept. Maybe it should be moved from the TCC page to the OVW page. But if SilentRage feels that OVW is "irrellivant" then maybe he should find some sources to improve its "rellivance". I slapped an OR tag on it before the AfD debate but that was a flag for others to find sources, not an invite to blank the section. Darrenhusted 14:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie 1227

Seems to be going for a record for single daily edits, this page has remained untouched for nine days (something of a record) and now Charlie 1227 had made 17 edits between 16:21 and 19:09, most of which were minor table corrections. He is not a newbie and he is not adding anything to this page which hasn't been discussed to death. I have asked him at his talk page to stop editing with information which is not needed. But just in case any one else is watching this page, can they help revert in case he gets the editing rush. Darrenhusted 19:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/i/Talk%7ETriple_Crown_Championship_2143.html"