Talk:Triple Crown Championship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Triple Crown Championship article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
WikiProject Professional wrestling
Professional wrestling
Portal
Triple Crown Championship is within the scope 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, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.
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)

Okay, I know everyone here thinks they're right, but let me bring up a few points that should clear this up. The current ECW World Championship is the exact same championship as the old ECW World Heavyweight Championship. All source that can be found will confirm that. Championship history goes Rhino then RVD. Now, that being said, just because the name of the title changed does not make it a new title. It's the same title. Rob Van Dam has held the ECW World (Heavyweight) Championship, the ECW Television Championship, and the ECW Tag Team Championship. That makes him an ECW Triple Crown Winner. Now, some of you are saying that different promotion makes a difference. Allow me to point out another section on this page which will dispute every claim that is based on that theory. Under TNA Triple Crown Potential Champions, it says Shane Douglas only needs an X Division Championship reign. But see, he was never NWA World Heavyweight Champion under the TNA banner. Same championship, different promotions. That cannot be disputed. Also, before WWE had two major titles, wasn't the WWE Campionship known as the WWE World Heavyweight Championship? Ah, yes it was. Now, since that title's name changed, it's still counted in the Triple Crown, isn't it? So, the ECW World (Heavywight) Championship has gone through a name change AND a promotion change. But based on the two pieces of evidence I just presented, it still counts toward the ECW Triple Crown. Now, if anyone else still thinks RVD doesn't belong, I hope you have a very, very good argument. I'm putting him back. Yours Truly, L2K 06:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC) The current ECW World Championship is the exact same championship as the old ECW World Heavyweight Championship. Wrong. Second, NWA is and always has been a group of promotions using the NWA name, TNA simply bought the rights to use that name, and with that they bought the history. Put RVD back and he'll be reverted, we work by consensus, which has already been reached. Darrenhusted 10:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is more confusion than concensus. And how are they not the same championship? Every source confirms that. I'm putting him back. L2K 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The WWE's own title history of the ECW Championship includes all title reigns of the original ECW from the moment it changed it's name to Extreme Championship Wrestling. It is still the ORIGINAL ECW World Heavyweight Championship, maintains the ORIGINAL title lineage, and counts as part of an ECW version of a Triple Crown. The WWE even recognizes the title histories of the ECW Television and World Tag Team Titles, even though they aren't in use now. Proof: http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/history/ecwchampionship/ - Nebulousecho 00:36, 14 August 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)

Ok, so does Online World of Wrestling's title history page count as a reference? Does WWE's Title History page count?Mlsq42 08:47, 23 May 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)

Simply put, OVW isn't a major promotion. If we put OVW, then we'll have to put DSW, and a bunch of other mid-level federations. The list would be way too long. I actually would like to question you on why you would actually think that OVW is on the level of national promotions like WWE or TNA and why you think it is greater than, let's say, DSW or ROH. In fact, I think there was already a discussion and consensus on leaving-out the non-major promotions off the list. Check the archives. ---SilentRAGE! 17:16, 17 April 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)

[edit] Bobby Lashley

Hey man, you keep disagreeing with Lashley being a potential champion. I put him under potential champion if the United States Champion would be considered an equivalent to the IC title.

Bobby Lashley has held a World Title and Second-tier championship, which to become a Triple Crown he needs the Tag Team belt. SO HE IS A POTENTIAL CHAMPION

And if you dont consider the ECW World Championship as part of the ECW Triple Crown or the WWE Triple Crown, what do you think of it? Are you still making as the Eastern Championship or something?

You have to decide. Is it part of the Original ECW Triple Crown, or is it part of the WWE Triple Crown?

It hasn't even been confirmed that the ECW championship is part of the WWE Triple Crown. Same with the US championship. Until then, Bobby Lashley is considered to have not even started to acquiring the necessary titles. He's as close as Deuce and Domino. Anakinjmt 23:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't say that about the ECW Championship. The ECW Championship has been confirmed as an equal to the other world championships. The US Championship has not been confirmed, but the ECW has. That is why it has been put under Potential Champions.

Lashley needs to win either the WWE Championship (formerly the WWF and WWWF Heavyweight Championship, and on the RAW brand) or the World Heavyweight Championship (currently on the SD brand), plus either the WWE Tag Team Championship (formerly the WWF and WWWF Tag Team Championship, on the RAW brand) or the World Tag Team Championship (on the SD brand), and then he would need to win the Intercontinental Championship Belt (currently on RAW). He has only won the United States championship (currently on SD and formerly the WCW US title, and NWA US title before that). He is the current holder of the WWE owned ECW title which is not a part of a WCW triple crown (which the US title could be considers part of), the ECW triple crown (which died in 2001 when ECW folded) nor the WWE triple crown. How on earth would Lashley who has won zero title that count towards the WWE triple crown championship a potential champion? And do not tell me that the US or ECW titles count. Go Mr Unsigned...Darrenhusted 16:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You keep forgetting that the ECW World Championship can be considered part of the WWE Triple Crown. It is a complete equal to the WWE Championship, and it is owned by WWE. This is no assumation, it is hard fact. And if you do not want to consider it as a WWE World title, then you must consider it as an ECW Title, which will make it part of the ECW Triple Crown, which will make Rob Van Dam an ECW Triple Crown. So, either way, you have to make a choice. You can't tell me it is neither the ECW nor WWE Triple Crown, because then which Triple Crown is it affiliated to, the TNA Triple Crown? You must make a choice, A. RVD is an ECW Triple Crown or B. Bobby Lashley is a Potential WWE Triple Crown

PS. You did find out my user even if I didnt sign, but here it is... Lex94 1:14pm April 15th, 07

The ECW World Championship is not considered part of the WWE Triple Crown. Nowhere, by any independent reliable published source (including WWE or PWI) is it said so, if it's not stated as such, then it is not. Just you considering it as such just because it's a world title, is considered original research. Also, it is not part of the original ECW Triple Crown, because it's different incarnation of the belt owned by an entirely different company. No decision has to be made, the belt doesn't count for either Triple Crown, because it is not stated as such by a verifiable, reliable, independent published source. Bmg916SpeakSign 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If your logic is true, then which VERIFIABLE, RELIABLE and INDEPENDENT published source states that it isn't part of either Triple Crown?
  • Ive given u more than a month to answer that question, just noticed that right now. Well, until someone says otherwise, the ECW Championship is considered part of the WWE Triple Crown. objections? Lex94 15:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Therefore, I do not have to come up with sources that states it isn't, in order to remove a claim that he is. Bmg916Speak 15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Lex94 the ECW world title is not a substitute for the WWE or World title, and Lashley has only won the ECW and ECW titles neither of which are part of the triple crown so why in the name of jehovah would you want to add it to a page which has had no major edits/edit wars in month? If you can find a source to say it is a substitute (try emailing mcmahon.vince@wwe.com) then you cannot add it, and as there is no source then, guess what, you cannot add it. Darrenhusted 15:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All the titles

Is there a term for someone who has one all the titles they can win in the WWE:

1. WWE Championship 2. World Championship 3. Intercontinental Championship 4. United States Championship 5. World Tag Team Championships 6. WWE Tag Team Championships

Because if the term exists, then there would be these Potential Champions:

  • Chris Benoit needs a WWE Championship reign
  • Edge needs a World Heavyweight Championship reign
  • Ric Flair needs a WWE Tag Team Championship reign
  • Shawn Michaels needs a WWE Tag Team Championship reign
  • Triple H needs a WWE Tag Team Championship reign
  • Kurt Angle (who is currently not contracted by the WWE) needs a World Tag Team Championship reign
  • *Not including the ECW Championship (bcuz KAYFABE explains it is not part of the WWE), nor any defunct titles (European, North American, Hardcore, etc.


GOOD NEWS Edge doesnt need the World Championship anymore. So, by a coincidence of this question i made a long time ago, now, it has actually happened. So, we should create a term for someone who has won all those titles. Lex94 10:47pm May 10, 07

WWE does not have a term like that. As for your list, Shawn Michaels and Triple H have never won the US championship. Anakinjmt 20:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Creating a term would definitely amount to considerable original research, which is one of wikipedia's core policies, therefore, we shouldn't, nor will we create such a term. Bmg916Speak 03:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Champions

There aren't any potential champions if the United States Championship was considered part of the Triple Crown, so I took that sentence out. Lex94 April 23 9:40

[edit] Show Edge some love

Edge just did something historic here.

He has won a Triple Double.

He has won both the Raw and Smackdown versions of the Triple Crown. (I know the U.S. Title isn't "official", yadda yadda yadda.)

But, come on, are we going to let a mere technicality derail the fact that Edge has done something special here.

We need to put something in here that acknowledges this great feat.

Ohgltxg 16:12 May 9, 2007 (UTC)

If you want to show love how about Jericho, he won the WCW, WWE, IC, Tag, Hardcore, Euro, ECW TV, WCW TV and CW titles. That's a man who deserves love. As for the Edge thing, if he's the first to have won all five titles since the brand split then maybe a note on his page is best. Darrenhusted 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Edge has never won the WWE US title. He's won the WCW US title, which is different. Anakinjmt 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

He won the WCW United States Championship while it was under the WWE. Lex94 11:34 May 12, 2007

Edge has done something extrodinary winning a double Triple Crown in WWE. Now all he needs to do is win the ECW title and he will have held all seven championships. User: Vermon CaTaffy 8

Yes, and all he has to do after that is lose 30 pounds and get a sex change and then he can win the WWE Cruiserweight and Women’s Championship.--Prince Patrick 13:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to get that image out of my head... ugh! Lemon Demon (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of ECW and WCW Triple Crowns

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The fact that wrestler X won titles A, B and C is not intrinsically noteworthy. The combination of titles achieves notability when it is formally recognised by a global professional wrestling promotion. The fact that another promotion possessed an analogous set of titles does not warrant mention. The Triple Crowns are notable because WWE and TNA have defined them, not irrespective of this fact. Additional Triple Crowns should be added to the page only if there is a reliable source stating unambiguously that they are formally recognised accomplishments. McPhail 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. That definitely helps end all controversies about RVD. L2K 15:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree as well. Gavyn Sykes 23:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US Championship Situation

I've read the archives and I see that this issue is "resolved". A concensus has been reached. I have a question. Since when does the concensus of a bunch of Internet wrestling fans override fact? Since when does the opinion of a bunch of web surfers override what has been said on WWE? Edge won the World Heavyweight Championship. If everyone on here decided that he didn't and there was a concensus, does that mean he didn't win it? No, because WWE has confirmed that he did. JBL has called himself a Triple Crown Champion, and Big Show was referred to as Triple Crown Champion. Both were on official WWE television, and therefore are official. I really don't see why there was ever a debate, or why "concensus" takes precedent over fact. Once I teach myself how to do tables on here, I'm gonna change it. L2K 15:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

When was Big Show referred to as a Triple Crown Champion? Just curious, I may have missed that show. I have heard JBL refer to himself as a Triple Crown Champion though. However it's not fact until WWE or PWI explicity state that the United States Championship counts towards the Triple Crown Championship. Until that happens, the consensus stands, and you going against consensus without providing an independent third party reliable source for your "fact" (per WP:A) is against Wikipedia policy. Bmg916SpeakSign 15:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is reached when there are no facts to back the position up, you say that the Big Show was referred to as TCC, then simple find the link and add it to the bottom of the page, the current table was the compromise, as the TCC with the US title has never been established (and PWI would be a start) then the agreement was to list John Cena, The Big Show and JBL as potential champions and explain the situation about the controversy. I was going to say WP:RTFA but as you already have, and conceded that the consensus has been reached why choose to over turn an established position. I'm all for being bold but L2K you seem to announcing you intent to vandalise the page, even though you know you are going against consensus. And if you feel so strongly about consensus then why edit Wikipedia? This page and the Grand Slam Champion were both put through AfD to reach this compromise so this is not just the view of a small group of cranks, but rather the best of a bad situation. If you have proof to back up your edits then show me the source, otherwise you would be best off leaving this page as it is. Darrenhusted 15:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can't find a source for the Big Show comment, but I was going on what someone else said in this debate that didn't appear to be disputed. But even if you leave that fact out, why do you automatically disregard JBL's comment about himself being a Triple Crown Champion? That doesn't seem to be in dispute, why can't it be taken as a source? L2K 16:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
JBL talking about himself is not considered a verifiable source in accordance with WP:V. When referring to himself, he is also not acting as a neutral, independent third party source which is not in accordance with WP:A. Bmg916SpeakSign 16:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but JBL was speaking from a script, written by WWE writers, wasn't he? L2K 16:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, and we cant know for sure, which amounts to some sort of speculation, which is against wiki-policy as well. I personally agree that the U.S. Championship counts, but I also agree we can't put it in there without the same sort of verifiability we have for the other SmackDown! Titles counting. Bmg916SpeakSign 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes that the US title should be part of the TCC on SD!, but there is no other source confirming that, so after acres of discussion the page was edited to reflect the current position, which is that John Cena is not called a Triple Crown Champion (and given Show and JBL's positions he is the one who will confirm the US title as such), Big Show has never been called a TCC and JBL called himself a TCC on one occasion and that is not backed up by a non-WWE source. So the page should stay as is. Darrenhusted 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

BMG, good point, but Darrenhusted, why do we need a non-WWE source to confirm something about the WWE? That's like saying you won't believe that I'm a guy until someone else tells you that. L2K 16:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really, all I'm saying is that in the absence of any other evidence any claim made needs at least a WWE.com reference (as is provided with HBK, which supports the concept of a WWE triple crown and grand slam, and with Kurt Angle, who was described on his departure as a former Triple Crown and Grand Slam champion and who had only won the alternate Tag title) and a separate PWI reference would confirm any claims. The consensus was reached on the understanding that Cena, TBS or JBL could not be added until the WWE or PWI confirmed the US title as part of the crown or slam. This has not happened and so this page reflects the current situation. If tomorrow WWE.com called John Cena a Triple Crown Champion and an independent source confirmed this then the page could change, as it stands for you to change the page (which is what you were proposing, against the established consensus) would be vandalism, and it would be reverted. Lest you forget your first post, "I really don't see why there was ever a debate, or why "concensus" takes precedent over fact. Once I teach myself how to do tables on here, I'm gonna change it." All I'm trying to do is make clear why the page is as it is. Darrenhusted 18:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna forget my first post, since I am the one who made it. Now, allow me to point out a certain part of your post: "If tomorrow WWE.com called John Cena a Triple Crown Champion and an independent source confirmed this then the page could change," My question: Why does there have to be an independent source to confirm it if WWE were to call John Cena a Triple Crown Champion? If WWE says it, I'm sure that's official. 70.109.104.186 20:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

WWE.com is, in the most part, kayfabed. They claim that Pat Patterson won a tournament in Rio to become IC champ. The WWE is a good start for a reference, but the Kurt Angle reference confirming the alternate Tag titles count is open to interpretation for example, so a second source would be helpful. PWI is that source. For the US title there is no source, not PWI and not WWE, and that is why the trouble over this position, although even if WWE.com does report it we would really need a second source because there are some editors and admins who delete content that only relies on one source. Darrenhusted 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, everything about Triple Crown Championships is kayfabe, buddy. If WWE.com says something about WWE, it counts. So if WWE.com ever mentions it, but nothing else does, it's still going up. L2K 02:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are now in the position that Prince Patrick was two months ago that there is no support for the US title being part of the triple crown, as opposed to when you stated at the beginning of this discussion that you were going to add it in regardless. Fine by me. Darrenhusted 13:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the "Unofficial Triple Crown" section...

I think the Unofficial Triple Crown champion section needs a little more elaboration as to why the 3 men who are listed there are not considered Triple Crown champions. Would anyone mind if I added some more info to it? SuperSonicTH 15:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the info Lex94 03:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thers is no info to add, Cena, Big Show and JBL have won the US title but not the IC title, and they have all won the WWE title and WWE tag team title, there is no one in the federation who has held the US title, not won the IC title and is waiting for the US title to be declared part of the TCC, I have no idea what information you could want to add. Darrenhusted 22:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the ECW Championship should be added to the "Unofficial Triple Crown" section because if the ECW Title was considered to be one of the top tier titles that would be part of an Official Triple Crown, then John Morrison would be a Triple Crown Champion with his past reigns as a WWE Tag Team (as part of MNM), Intercontinental, and ECW Champion. I think this would be fair because if the US Championship is an "Unofficial" Triple Crown title, then I don't see why the ECW Title shouldn't fall in the same category as the US Title. 00:34, 24 November 2007

[edit] ECW Title

Sandman referred to the ECW Championship Vince was wearing as the original ECW Championship when he stated that he held it 5 times. Here, it was decided that they werent the same, when all other source being WWE, PWI or any other site called it so. Now officially, a previous ECW Champion informed it was, so I dont understand why we can't refer to Rob Van Dam as an ECW Triple Crown. Does anyone care to explain? Lex94 02:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It still qualifies as OR, as Sandman didn't talk about the ECW TC. Darrenhusted 22:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

u really are a hard shell to crack. hasnt anyone noticed that wwe dropped the triple crown name. they havent mentioned it in years. the triple crown is now only something ficticious owned by the fans, so if it has to be edited, it should be by the fans. and wwe wont ever mention anything about it.

Last time it was mentioned was when Kurt Angle was let go, that's not too long ago and when HHH and HBK return I wouldn't be surprised if JR mentions they are both GSC and TCC. It has existed, just because it hasn't been mentioned in a week or month or year means that it goes away. Darrenhusted 23:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

They mentioned Triple Crown one night on Raw after Edge and Randy Orton won the tag titles.I think they were fighting DX. Kirby17 22:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

From wwe.com: "Rob Van Dam June 13, 2006 - July 4, 2006

At ECW One Night Stand, Rob Van Dam defeated John Cena to win the WWE Championship. Prior to the match, RVD said he would rechristen it as the ECW World Championship if he won; however, on the debut of ECW on Sci Fi on June 13, Paul Heyman simply awarded him the ECW Championship to make Rob a double champion. As such, this is recognized as the official re-activation of the ECW World Championship. " [1]

Obviously, they are saying that the ECW Championship is reactivated and is the same as the original one. and because the original one is part of the ECW Triple Crown, this one should too. (If RVD would have rechristened the WWE Championship, it wouldnt have. But the ECW Championship was brought back instead)Lex94 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There wer no sources supproting an ECW TC, so it was deleted, your point is correct, but moot. Darrenhusted 17:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Nitro a Triple Crown Champion?

Nitro has held the WWE Tag Team Championship and the Intercontinental Championship. Does his ECW World Title win at Vengeance make him a triple crown champion?

Yes, it should. Lex94 03:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say, put it under the "unofficial" triple crown winners. (add ECW World Title to the same graph where they have WWE, World, and the US titles) Also, he could be taken off the "potential" triple crown winners section. 70.16.133.35 03:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say just as there is speculation about the U.S. Championship and its status, perhaps create a table similar to this one, but about the ECW World Title. Seeking consensus on the community talk page would be a good way to get opinions on what needs to be done in this situation. - Deep Shadow 04:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. The only reason I thought it would count was because in the April 27, 2007 edition of Jim Ross' blog, he said he thought three World Titles were too many, which would indicate the ECW World Title counts as an equivalent to the WWE Championship and World Heavyweight Championship. 74.113.239.153 04:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I really have no idea why anyone would want to speculate on the status of the ECW title, and how does JR saying "three World titles were too many" mean it is a substitute for the Triple Crown? All he's saying is it is a World status title, not a substitute for the WWE or World titles. If the US title doesn't count (and to be honest the case for that is a lot stronger than the ECW title) then the ECW title doesn't count. Next we will be back down the road of the Cruiserweight title subbing for the European title. The consensus on this is now one of silence, Bobby Lashley didn't go on the potential champions list when he won the ECW title, and there is no reason for Nitro to be listed. The five titles listed are confirmed as part of the Triple Crown, as soon as a source tells us the ECW or US title are part of the Crown then by all means put it in, for now, leave them out. Darrenhusted 09:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason there is confusion is because Nitro actually has won 2 of the 3 relevant titles (Intercontinental and WWE Tag Team). Lashley hasn't won any, so he's not even close to being included. - Deep Shadow 09:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
In terms of listing though Nitro can be kept where he was with the other Tag/IC champions. He doesn't need to be moved to a new category including ECW champions. Darrenhusted 09:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I think yhat Nitro is one too because the ECW World title is just as important as the WWE or World Heavyweight title, and besides, Lashley has NOT won the Tag Team Championships, so I say add Nitro.GD1223 09:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The burden of proof lies with those who add the material, not those who delete, find a source that says "The ECW title can be used to substitue for the WWE or World title for a Triple Crown Championship" and then he can be added. And you are right GD1223, Lashley has not won a tag title but he has won the US, and that is why people keep trying to add him to this page. Darrenhusted 13:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the ECW World Title is now considered a WWE belt, John Morrison should be a Triple Crown Champion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.210.196 (talk • contribs) No, until a source can be found. Darrenhusted 16:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WWE U.S. Championship and ECW World Title

I have come up with a list of reasons why these titles do or do not qualify for the WWE list of triple crown champions. First of all lets start off with the WWE United States Champiuonship.

WWE United States Championship - This title is the equivilent to the WWE Intercontinental Championship on Raw. It is SmackDown!'s second tier title and has been held by John Cena, JBL, and Big Show. All of them are eligible for the WWE triple crown ststus. Since ststed above that this title is the equivilent of Raw's second tier title this championship must also be eligible. The World Heavyweight and WWE tag Team titles are recognized for this already and it makes sense that the U.S. title would also be included in this.

ECW World Title - Due to WWE kayfabe ECW is not a part of WWE. Since ECW is it's own promotion it should be noted that ECW has its own triple crown that nobody else can win because the ECW TV title and ECW Tag Team titles are not active. Due to these reasons the ECW title does not qualify for a WWE triple crown because ECW is (kayfabe) not a part of WWE. That is all I hae to say on the subject. I thank you for reading my statements.

Vermon CaTaffy 8

As I have said a hundred times, find a source for the US title then is can be added. Otherwise it is pure OR. Darrenhusted 14:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

ECW is part of WWE, even under kayfabe. You are thinking of the direction they were going in summer 2006 as a seperate promotion, but they decided to have it represented by being under WWE. So, I believe the ECW Championship should be part of he Triple Crown, because we dont seperate brands' triple crowns. If someone wins the WWE Championship, World Tag Team, and IC Championships, we dont call him 'RAW Triple Crown', we call him just a Triple Crown. But, if you win the WWE Championship, WWE Tag Team and IC, it will stil be a triple crown. So we can substitue any of the titles with their equivalent on another brand, where ECW is actually another brand.

If you still think kayfabe makes ECW a seperate promotion, then it is still irrevelant, because a Triple Crown has nothing to do with kayfabe. It works on facts, and the fact is that Johnny Nitro has won a World Title, a Seond-tier title, and a tag team title in the business. Thats the definiton of the TRIPLE CROWN, whether you like it or not. Lex94 17:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Find a reference, this is all OR. In the WWE published History of the Champions it define the Triple Crown as WWE/World, Tag and IC. Find me a source to contradict that. Darrenhusted 17:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though the winner of the Royal Rumble winner has a choice of world champions Lashley had to relinquish his world title when he was drafted to RAW. My rationale is that Cena and Batista did not have to give up theirs so ECW must not be a part of WWE (Kayfabe). Not to mention that ECW has a separate triple crown from WWE as stated earlier. So for Nitro to be a triple crown champion he must win the ECW Tag and ECW TV title. However if the new ECW is a part of the WWE triple crown the quesion comes up of whether the ECW Tag and ECW TV title qualify for the triple crown too. Give me a little time to look into it. Vermon CaTaffy 8

I wouldn't bother wasting your time, you are just guessing; WWE and World, WWE Tag and World Tag, IC. There is not other research which adds the US title or the ECW title. There is only one passing mention on one article which says there is an ECW TC and that was striken from this article months ago and so a consensus by silence can only be assumed. Cena is not a TCC, Lashley is not a potential TCC and Nitro is not a TCC, there is nothing else left to discuss. Darrenhusted 22:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Existance of the ECW Triple Crown

[2]- Interview with a developmental Mathew Cardona. References Mikey Whipwreck as the ECW Triple Crown.

[www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.asp?id=6820&p=11]- PWI refers to Mikey Whiwreck as ECW Triple Crown.

Lex94 18:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A single interview in which a wrestler who was not connected in any way with ECW is not sufficient evidence, especially given that it would be in Cardona's best interests to augment Whipwreck's reputation by attributing accolades to him. The fact that there are no other references to the ECW Triple Crown from within the industry is fairly telling. McPhail 12:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Even so, Triple Crowns aren't always put out there, if a guy won the three major titles in a promotion I don't see how they don't have a triple crown. They pretty much silently exist. TonyFreakinAlmeida 19:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WWE

Why dont we email WWE and ask him for the reference of the definition of Triple Crown? Lex94 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't work, tried it. — Moe ε 09:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The introduction of the page

In professional wrestling, a Triple Crown Champion is a term describing a wrestler who has won the three most prestigious belts of their promotion - typically a heavyweight belt, a tag team belt, and a second-tier belt. A "multiple triple crown" distinction also exists, with having won the three constituent titles at least a specified number of times.

If this is true, the only Triple Crown would be THE BIG SHOW, for he is the only one to win "the three most prestigious belts of their promotion" (ECW Championship, WWE Championship, World Championship) Lex94 16:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really, that is a reference to the TNA triple crown being won multiple times, if you scroll down the page you will note that Big Show is not a Triple Crown Champion, and thus could not be referred to in the intro. Darrenhusted 18:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I thnk his point was that the definition on the beginning of the page is wrong. A Triple Crown is not the one who won the three major titles in a wrestling promotion. If that was true, the WWE Championship, World Championship, and ECW Championship would be the Triple Crown. The definition should state In professional wrestling, a Triple Crown Champion is a term describing a wrestler who has won the Heavyweight Championship, Tag Team Championship and Second-tier championship of their promotion. In WWE's case, of their respective brands.' 68.88.70.146 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It already says heavyweight, tag and second tier. The intro needs to be short, I really don't see any difference between what is already written and what you are saying. Darrenhusted 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
"Three major titles of their promotion" is not the same as "Heavyweight, tag team and second-tier belt" (the three major titles are the WWE, World and ECW Championships).Lex T/C Guest Book 11:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Triple Crown Winners + ROH/TNA?

Now that ROH has a PPV National deal, should they have their triple crown up. I think they should, because, they are kind of a national promotion, when you take in the fact that the PPV's are broadcast around the Nation.

Also, TNA's triple crown should be able to sub the NWA belts for the TNA belts, correct, since they are still part of that promotion?

I also think we should have a small section of WWE Multiple Triple Crown winners, because Shawn Michaels would be a three time triple crown winner by that defination(He held the WWE Title 3 times, the World Tag Titles 4 times, and the IC Title 3 times.)

Also, just saying, if a Triple Crown definition does state the use of a Primary Title, a Secondary Title, and a Tag Title counts toward someone being a TCC, wouldn't that count the US Title as well, because it is a second-tier title of SD, easily? I mean, take the common sense definition of it, and basically it is a part of the triple crown, as per the definition. Tommyspud 15:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Find a source, and the US title debate has been discussed to death, I suggest you RTA Darrenhusted 15:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So, you are denying the definition of a triple crown? The definition of a triple crown has been proven, so if the US Title is a second tier title, which it is, it should be in the triple crown. Tommyspud 15:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the WWE History of the Champion which defines the TCC as WWE/IC/WWE Tag, then Shawn Michaels redefines it as WORLD/IC/WWE Tag, then Kurt Angle adds WORLD/IC/WORLD Tag. No where is there a reference which confirms the US title as an equal replacement for the IC. So once more I ask that you RTFA. What you are saying may seem to be common sense but it is also OR, and Wikipedia says no OR. Darrenhusted 15:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, look at the pages for both the IC Title and the US Title, they each state that they are the second highest belts on their respective brands, making them second tier titles, therefore they are equal replacements for each other. Don't tell me to RTA, because, I've already read it, and I didn't see anyone try to make a claim as to the definition of a triple crown. Tommyspud 15:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you have read the archive you will see that people have grown tired of this debate, the US title is not the same as the IC, and no consensus has been reached, once you find a source that backs you up then I will happily leave the US champs in, until then it is OR. Darrenhusted 15:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As a supplement, the whole TNA/NWA thing has resulted in a hundred edits, I'd find a source for that too. Darrenhusted 16:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Got that sourced and verified, seems as the TNA belts can be interchanged with the NWA belts as per the roster bios. http://www.tnawrestling.com/roster/ajstyles/index.html http://www.tnawrestling.com/roster/brotherdevon/index.html

See, it just lists them as actual World Heavyweight Champion or World Tag Team Champions, so I guess the TNA Triple Crown would include the TNA belts. Tommyspud 03:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If the source is good then edit away, but don't be surprised if it gets quickly reverted. Darrenhusted 10:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, and there is also this... http://www.tnawrestling.com/info/history/tnaworldtitle.html That proves they are interchangeable. Tommyspud 17:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, be warned that if you have read the archives then you may want to check the page history because the edit you want to make may have already been made and revrted. Darrenhusted 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The TNA website states that the TNA Triple Crown consists of the NWA World-, NWA Tag- and TNA X- titles. Unless they explicitly state that the Triple Crown definition has been revised, editing the page to reflect this is original research. Moreover, the title history page states, "[the] NWA World Title is replaced by the TNA World Title" (emphasis mine). A new title would logically commence a new Triple Crown. McPhail 14:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, REPLACED, which means in the Triple Crown, that the NWA belts would be Replaced with the TNA Belts. They still refer to AJ as a triple crown winner, check the newest TNA Today, so therefore, the Triple Crown stays to what I had it. The triple crown belts have been replaced, as to the Title page, so we must say that the triple crown, is under the exact same decision. Tommyspud 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The TNA website states that the NWA World Title was replaced, not that it became the TNA World Title or was renamed the TNA World Title. Furthermore, your argument is based on conjecture rather than evidence. Unless TNA specifically states that the Triple Crown has been redefined, or acknowledges Daniels or Senshi as a Triple Crown winner upon winning the TNA World Title, the definition should be left as it is. McPhail 23:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The TNA Title History also states that the NWA Title holders are still TNA World CHAMPIONS, because they are on that list, so either, all the NWA title holders in TNA need to be switched to the TNA Title holders as well, thereby making the effect that if the NWA belts do not be switched, then an entire new section should be added. Tommyspud 00:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The table indicates a break between the NWA and TNA world titles. There is no suggestion that the TNA world title retrospectively occupies the role played by the NWA world title. In any event, this is a moot point. There are numerous sources stating that the TNA Triple Crown consists of the NWA world/NWA tag/TNA X titles. Unless you can supply an official source confirming that this definition has been revised, the article must remain in the referenced version. McPhail 20:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is also no SUGGESTION that it isn't either. All we have to go on is that the NWA Title holders are on the TNA title history. If the definition of the Triple Crown HASN'T change, then tell me why the NWA Title holders in TNA are a part of the TNA Title History, instead of having it's own section. So if there is a BREAK between the NWA and TNA titles, then there should be a break in the triple crown as well. (From Tommyspud) 75.162.15.86 01:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat once more: cite sources, not rationale. There are existing references defining the TNA Triple Crown as the combination of the NWA World-, NWA Tag- and TNA X- titles. There are no existing references defining the TNA Triple Crown as the combination of the TNA World-, TNA Tag- and TNA X- titles. Unless you can supply these references, there is nothing further to discuss. McPhail 15:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
To McPhail, even if there aren't references to TNA's triple crown definition changing, it's implied with the move from the NWA World Tag and Heavyweight Titles to the TNA branded ones. TonyFreakinAlmeida 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I would consider AJ Styles the first and only NWA-TNA Triple Crown champion since he held the NWA World, NWA Tag and TNA X-Division titles. TNA may be trying to re-write history by saying that all their former champs are TNA champs because they lost the rights to the NWA name. Kurt Angle would be the first TNA Triple Crown champ because he held the TNA World, TNA Tag and TNA X-Division titles. Kurt is not a former NWA World champ because he is not recognized by the NWA as such and also in one of TNA's ads hyping a PPV they stated Angle was a 7-time world champ which means they are counting his 6 WWE reigns and his current TNA reign and not a NWA title reign. (From wwffan1)

[edit] Samoa Joe

I had been reverted attempts to list Joe in the "potential champions" section of the TNA Triple Crown yesterday. I had compeltely forgotten that the PPV had even aired. I apologize for my behavior. Gavyn Sykes 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Angle in TNA

Should Kurt be added temporarily to the list of Potential champions for the TNA Triple Crown since he will become one if he wins one match at Hard Justice? Virakhvar321 06:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking to make him a potential potential champion? Don't you think that list would include half the TNA roster? I would leave any wrestlers off until they actually win titles. Darrenhusted 11:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No I'm saying that he needs 2 more titles to be a Triple Crown champion, but he can do it in just one match; no one else in TNA can do that. Angle can win the X Divison and Tag Team titles with one pinfall while it would take everyone else multiple matches. I'm just saying Angle can be a Triple Crown champion by winning one match with all the titles on the line. Virakhvar321 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I would leave it off until the match is over, there are hundreds of matches during the year when wrestlers could win stuff, I would say it falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Darrenhusted 23:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MVP

MVP won the us and wwe tag team campion,doesnt that make him a potentiol triple crown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnycash316 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No because MVP has only won one of the titles needed to obtain a triple crown and we only add wrestlrs who need one title to be a triple crown champion. Bencey 14:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The US Title- Triple Crown Mess

I think I might have solved the problem. I have sent a message to Jim Ross himself about the situation via his blog. Hopefully the information and source of a longtime WWE employee like him can finally solve this problem once and for all. I will be monitoring his blog for a reply and will post it here as a refrence if I recieve one. I really want those that have earned a triple crown to be acknowledged for their accomplishments. Keep your fingers crossed. 69.183.53.95 18:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)JakeDHS07

Don't hold your breath, I tried and a ton of different methods that never got responses from WWE last year when the whole mess started. — Moe ε 09:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got a response from JR. He says that the US and intercontinental championships are equal therefore the US title is part of the triple crown. Him being part of WWE his opinion must be accepted. See here: http://www.jrsbarbq.com/blog/2007/09/12/jrs-family-bar-b-q-expansion-football-talk-the-rock-unforgiven-and-so-much-more/ scroll down to the Shawn indent and there is his answer. Finally this mess is over. Someone please edit the page.149.152.62.86 15:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)JakeDHS07

Dude, if that was really you who asked the question, then sorry for all your work, because JR didn't specify anything in that answer. He said the titles are on "equal footing". They can be equal in other aspects, like prestige, importance or even price. But, that doesn't necessarily mean they are equal in the Triple Crown area, because the United States Championship is not even in that area. Lex94 10:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If I would think right, the US Championship (based on a country) would be far lesss prestigeous than the IC Championship (based on 2 continents) or the EU Championship (based on 1 continent). I would make it like a 4th Tier championship. Lex94 10:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason of US title not being in triple crown

I understand now why WWE won't allow the United States Championship or ECW Championship into their Triple Crown. Stephanie McMahon stated Vince wanted to show off him owning his rival promotion, by assigning Bischoff as GM. Well, I believe Vince believes that because the US comes from WCW and the ECW Championship comes from ECW, that they shouldn't be allowed in HIS triple crown. Just a thought... Lex94 03:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a possibility, but if that's a case, then Vince must have a bug up his nose. But if Rey Mysterio becomes the United States Champion (may not happen but I'm throwing that in there for the sake of an argument), then he would be a Grand Slam winner for the Smackdown brand for having held all four titles in that promotion--the Crusierweight, WWE Tag Team, World Heavyweight, and United States championships. IF that were to happen, then that would be one interesting debate. 00:39, 24 November 2007

And Edge is already a SmackDown Triple Crowner by definition of Heavyweight, Secondary and Tag Team Titles, even though he won the US title before it became apart of SmackDown in the brand extension. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
That would be interesting for Rey, surprising they haven't made mention of this on the show to build more intrigue to the fued. I also just noticed that Edge is the only Triple Crown superstar to have held every title on the list now that that there are two World and Tag titles to hold.Tony2Times (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, we can lay to rest that the ECW Championship is NOT a world title. The ECW Champion Chavo Guerrero was in the Rumble to win a future world championship match. And because he was in the match, it's safe to say that the title he currently wields is not a world title. Lex T/C Guest Book 11:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Randy Orton

I know its not the biggest of matters, still i had a thought that i was hoping someone could clear up for me. does it matter which title you win first. As randy orton has won both wwe and world heavy weight is it not fair to say he has became a triple crown champ in the traditional way now?Black6989 (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Black6989

Also there is a mistake with Orton. It says he won the WWE Tag Team Champiomship, December 2003. That is suppose to be in the IC section, I would change it if I knew how that table works but I don't so someone needs to. WeLsHy (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AJ Styles

Can somebody put that he won the TNA Tag Team Title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.4.220 (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? Darrenhusted (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. AJ can become another Triple Crown but we would be using his NWA tag because that reign came first. Until he becomes a 5 time Triple Crown we don't have to place that in here because you can become a multi Crown champion.--WillC 02:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Benoit

It should be pointed out that although Benoit's World Title is now the "lesser" of the two, when he won it at Wrestlemania, it was the premier title of WWF at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.238.152 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

no. There is no reason. That doesn't change anything. The WWE title for a while there was the top title from 2002 to 2003. That doesn't change anything. The WWE title was the top one when HBK won the World. Should we change that one to? Should we place that Cena won the WWE title when the WHC was the more important one after he wins the IC in a year or so.--WillC 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edge

Wouldn't Edge be either a grand slam champion or at least a potential grand slam champion? He isn't listed as either though he has held the WWE Championship, World Heavyweight Championship, World Tag Team Championships, WWE Tag Team Championships, and Intercontinental championship (All multiple times) What else does he need to win? Am I missing something?JakeDHS07 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)JakeDHS07

He never won the European title. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah he needs a European and because that title is unified with the IC there is no way for him to be a Grand Slam. WWE would have to bring the title back. And I don't think they are. So there is no reason to say he is a potential GS champion.--WillC 02:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A.J. Styles

I'm not sure, but wouldn't A.J. Styles be a potential champ, only needing a TNA Heavyweight reign? It seems like it is like that. 69.61.221.25 (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

He has already won the TNA TC three times, therefore he is not a potential TCC, he is one, three times. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"In TNA, it is possible to be a multi-time Triple Crown Champion, as evidenced by commentators Mike Tenay and Don West referring to Styles as 3-time Triple Crown Champion. Styles is a 3-time NWA World Heavyweight Champion, 6-time TNA X Division Champion, 4-time NWA World Tag Team Champion, and 1-time TNA World Tag Team Champion, making him a three-time Triple Crown winner." So, wouldn't that make him a possible one? 69.61.221.25 (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I agree with the IP guy. Maybe we could place that AJ Styles is a potential 4 time Triple Crown winner just needing another World reign in TNA to become a 4 time. Because he is a potential 4 time.--WillC 02:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ECW Triple Crown (one more time)

http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/archive/cardonahired This link refers to Mikey Whipwreck as a ECW Triple Crown Championship....Because it is published by the WWE, the owner of ECW and its title history, it either retroaticvely establishes or reafirms the existance of an ECW Triple Crown 24.164.136.207 (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually for one agree. --UnquestionableTruth-- 01:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Title Mess One More Time

Realistically the US title is a secondary title and should be included, I understand the kayfabe answers are inconclusove, but the page should be edited to mention this and list those who would be a TC winner if the US title counted.

RTFA Darrenhusted (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's pure speculation. WWE has never acknowleged the US title as part of the Triple Crown, though it IS EQUAL in kayfabe to the IC title. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United States Championship

My suggestion is simple: I believe the United States Championship should be considered a surrogate for the Intercontinental Championship. If anything, the United States Championship is equally prestegious, since even though it had a long absence, its creation still came a good deal before the Intercontinental Title's. Some argue it should be considered a third-tier belt like the European Championship, but due to its reputation I disagree. Many esteemed wrestlers have been United States Champions, including many recent superstars, such as Chris Benoit, MVP, Matt Hardy, John Cena, The Big Show, John "Bradshaw" Layfield... The recent list is so impressive I could list most of the superstars who have held the title since its return who should be considered "esteemed superstars."

Nicksus (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Nicksus

Eddie Guerrero held the European Championship, and he's an "esteemed wrestler". Does that make the European Championship a second-tier championship? No. However, The US Championship is held in the same regard, I believe, on Smackdown! as the Intercontinental Championship is on Raw. Q.E.D. Lemon Demon (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
How about FSS? Find some sources. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
JBL said he was a Grand Slam Champion in a promo when he was US Champion. Since he needed an Intercontinental Title Reign, not a Euro one, it is implied the US is equal to the IC 24.164.136.207 (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Implication is not enough. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)