Talk:Triple Crown (professional wrestling)/Archive 3

United States Championship
If I see the reinsertion of the mention of the United States Championship into this article again, by anyone, they are going to be warned for inserting original research into Wikipedia unless of course you have a reliable source thats verifiable. semper fi — Moe  04:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The only defence I have in re-adding the United States Championship would be that JBL has mentioned that he is a Grand Slam Champion as a result of winning that title. In theory, isn't a Grand Slam Champion a Triple Crown Champion too? I know he is the only example I can provide, but it would seem very unusual that the WWE would not accept it as a part of the Triple Crown. They've accepted the World Heavyweight Title, why not the US Title too? I know I haven't got any evidence other than commentary, and as such I won't be adding it back in, but isn't the US Title a counterpart to the IC Title? It only makes sense really, I guess.

Gothekain 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the argument everyone has presented to him, and we had/have consenus on him, but he really doesn't give a damn. Just drop it. -- T H L  07:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User: Wrestling Fan 14:00, 7 January 2007

Big Show is considered a triple crown champion and he had won WWE Championship, World Tag-Team Championship and United States Championship, and not the Intercontinental. JBL said that he is a Grand Slam Champion, that means triple crown champion + European Champion. And Jbl never won the Intercontinental Championship. And more, if World Heavyweight Championship can be a substitute of the WWE Championship, and the WWE Tag-Team Championship can replace the World Tag-Team Championship, why the United States Championship can not replace the Intercontinental Championship? The U.S. Title for Smackdown! is like the Intercontinental for RAW.

The problem is, again, never explicitely said by WWE. And, JBL said something more along the lines of "I won the Grand Slam of wrestling" or something to that effect. And, considering it's JBL, can we really take his word for truth? Despite my thoughts on him, I say yes, but others think differently. Also, please sign comments by adding 4 ~ at the end. Anakinjmt 16:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Something to Consider
---Here is something that nobody has considered in the U.S. Title debate:

During the Invasion Angle in 2001, we would often see WWF and Alliance title holders battling their opposite numbers, meaning we had:

WWF Tag Team Champions vs WCW Tag Team Champions

WWF Light Heavyweight Champion vs WCW Cruiserweight Champion

WWF Intercontinental Champion vs WCW U.S. Champion

and eventually, WWF World Champion vs WCW World Champion

All of this lead to Survivor Series 2001, where the Invasion Angle wrapped up and most of the titles got unified with their counter parts:

Hardy Boyz (WWF Tag Champs) vs Dudley Boyz (WCW Tag Champs)

Test (I-C Champ) vs Edge (U.S. Champ)

They wanted to do X-Pac (Light Heavyweight Champ) vs Tajiri (Cruiserweight Champ), but as Commissioner Mick Foley said on the RAW before Survivor Series-- "Nobody knew, or cared, where X-Pac was."

And of course, they would unify the 2 World Titles at Vengeance 2001 the following month.

I don't know (or think) this will change anybody's mind, but it does give a perspective as to how WWF viewed (and views) the U.S. Title.---

The more I think about this the more annoyed I get. I'm considering taking this through the dispute resolution process. Consensus has been clearly established, as has grounds to ignore WP:OR. -- The Hyb rid  03:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

---Here is something to further stir the pot for those who say the ECW Championship should get Triple Crown/Grand Slam consideration:

If at the Royal Rumble, the winner of the rumble match could choose between the WWE, World, or ECW Titles to go after, or at Cyber Sunday this past year, where the 3 Champions fought each other, the 3 World Titles were all put out for consideration as equals.

It's like a courtroom trial, if you find enough evidence, you have a case.---

Let's give PWI time to declare the ECW title a world title. It can't be long now. Cheers, -- The Hyb rid  22:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

---The ECW Title was given World Title status by PWI on 8-27-99 when ECW got it's National TV deal on TNN. As ECW is now a branch of WWE, and goes on all of the overseas tours (teamed with Raw or Smackdown in "Supershows") where the ECW Title is defended. I believe PWI has given the ECW Championship World Title status the whole time. So that is not a problem.---

something else to consider
on wwe.com on the superstars page, where it lists the champions.On Raw the intercontinental is second from the top. On Smackdown the U.S is second from the top. On the title history page it goes
 * WWE Championship
 * World Heavyweight
 * ECW Heavyweight
 * Intercontinental
 * U.S
 * World tag team
 * WWE tag team
 * Women's
 * Cruiserweight

obviously there is some kind of order meaning the top 3 are havyweight titles

the next 2(intercontitnental and U.S) are the 2nd tier

and so on and so forth--58.108.229.13 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

something else, else to consider
in the draft lottery in 2005 when smackdown had no world championship of any kind for a couple of days, the United states championship was the top championship. In 2006 when Rob Van Dam held both the WWE championship and ECW Heavyweight titles on ECW. Raw was without a world championship of any kind for a 2 weeks. the intercontinental champion (Johnny Nitro) was the top champion.--Cooldandan 00:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

---This is the problem in a nutshell with the whole U.S. Title debate:

wwe.com has never explicitly said the title was part of the grand slam or triple crown.

It's not that WWE itself doesn't consider it to be the case, because a lot of examples (JBL, PWI, Invasion era unifications) have been cited stating that they do. But wwe.com is more concerned with getting the storylines and characters (and the "Mr. McMahon's @ss" cartoon) over than listing title accomplishments.

There was a story on 411wresling.com a few days ago that said that Michael Cole (who runs wwe.com) was catching some flak from the higher ups for bringing in writers right out of college who had no experience in running a website, and definitely no experience in wrestling.

Those that follow wrestling certainly know that the I-C and U.S. Championships have always been synonymous with each other, because they were always #2 on the totem pole in whatever promotion/brand they were in.

It's because of sloppiness and oversight on wwe.com's part, and a little stubborness on some Wiki administrators' part, that we are in the pickle that we're in.---

If wwe.com would wake up, things would be exponentially easier around here.
 * I don't think that he is an admin. He just reverts everything and gives people warnings. When I get sick enough of this I'll take this through the appropriate channels. -- The Hyb rid  11:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

---I think there should be a wrestling historian/expert on the administrative side of Wiki to be able to sort through quagmires such as this.---

Not gonna happen unfortunately. Wikipedia doesn't hire people for stuff like this. -- The Hyb rid  22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A Compromise
---I think I have found a compromise to the U.S. Title debate (for both the Triple Crown and Grand Slam):

I didn't add JBL or The Big Show to the list (I don't need the vlh treatment--I saw what happened to him), but I added a footnote to the potential champions list saying that these 2 may have already achieved this pending a review of the U.S. Title's status.

This way, the official list stays as is (keeping the administrators happy), while acknowledging the claims made for JBL and Show.

I hope this will keep some peace for a while until the controversy is resolved.---

While I appreciate what you are trying to do, nothing will resolve this dispute other than the WWE or PWI commenting on it, or someone taking this through the dispute resolution process and getting a ruling for or against them. Also, we have tried to compromise before, and that is what caused the current threat at the top of the page. Cheers, -- The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  22:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A New Look
---On wwe.com, they have revamped the title history page where they list the titles from Raw and Smackdown in a way where they are lined up side by side with their opposite number:

RAW       >      Smackdown

WWE       >      World

I-C       >      U.S.

World Tag >      WWE Tag

Women's   >      Cruiserweight

Again, I know they didn't come right out and say it, but by them doing their chart in a "totem pole" design in the way they did shows how WWE views the titles. Lining RAW title X up with Smackdown title Y like that has to indicate those titles are of the same value to their respective brands.--- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.250.48.37 (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC).



Not the same debate about the US title
Having read through the archives of talk I don't think that the following has been suggested or voted on, so I'm going ask it here. Can we not just add a line before the potential TC champions which tells us which of the TC champions have also won the US title (Bret Hart (WCW), Steve Austin (WCW), Kurt Angle (WWE), Eddie Guerrero (WWE), Chris Benoit (WCW/WWE), Ric Flair (NWA/WCW), Edge (WWE), Booker T (WCW/WWE)) and then if people wish to know who has held the US title and the IC it will be easy to see. I only ask because I think this page is good to see who has held both current tag titles. And maybe it will put a can on the IC/US debate. (I only say 'maybe'). Darrenhusted 19:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---The whole point of the U.S. Title debate is to include it in the Triple Crown. The only thing stopping it's inclusion is that WWE never "officially" stated that it was, even thought the new championship chart on the wwe.com title history page is pretty much a clear indication that they do consider it as equal.---

The U.S Championship
---WWE themselves provided the clearest proof of all of why The U.S. Title should be included in the mix.

This isn't a case of one assuming something or someone making a third party claim. This is WWE itself drawing up a chart to clearly illustrate that it's 2 sets of championships are to be considered as equals to each other.

There have been tons of people on here saying that the U.S. belt should be here, but they needed to have something solid to back the claim up. They needed something from WWE to show that it was the case. Right there on WWE's own website, they themselves provided visual proof of what has always been assumed but never fully proven.--- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.76.84.60 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Works for me. Moe, you got a problem with this? BTW, please don't add things to the chart until it's been agreed on. For now, I'm taking it out until this has in fact been completely resolved. Anakinjmt 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My vote goes without saying. If he votes it down I'm taking it through the DR process. I've grown bored with this whole thing, and I want it to end. -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  17:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the US title should be added, however as stated in the section above I don't see the harm in noting TCC who have also won the US title, just as there is a list of potential TC champions, if this page is simply here to let us know who has won the world, tag and IC titles then a note on the US title would be helpful, and may stop the table being changed. Darrenhusted

That would work for me actually. How about Y'all? -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose a vote on adding a note before the potential champions that lists as follows, "The following Triple Crown Champions have also won the US title; Bret Hart (WCW), Steve Austin (WCW), Kurt Angle (WWE), Eddie Guerrero (WWE), Chris Benoit (WCW/WWE), Ric Flair (NWA/WCW), Edge (WWE), Booker T (WCW/WWE), although this title is not considered part of the WWE triple crown at this time." or something along those lines. Darrenhusted 13:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

---Why shouldn't the U.S. Title be added? The whole point of it being brought back was for Smackdown to have a belt to compliment the I-C Title when it was brought back on Raw. WWE considers the I-C and U.S belts to be of equal standing (as shown by their placements on the Championship Chart). Thus any accolades that I-C champs receive should also apply to U.S title holders as well.

I know I refer to the chart a lot, but I believe that it is clearest indication that those who are U.S. Championship proponents can show to prove their point.

Look at it this way:

Raw has all of the original WWF/E belts, and Smackdown has the new belts. Each of the new titles is meant to be a "mirror image" or a "soulmate" or an equivalent to the originals. The titles are lined up on the chart in this fashion:

Primary Title

Secondary Title

Tag Title

Specialty Title

Raw's titles on the left, Smackdown's on the right.

It can't possibly get any clearer than that.---

You could learn to sign your name and maybe read the archives on this, it has been voted down before, as an alternative I am suggesting the US title winners list, then the US title is on this page for those who want to know, and the table doesn't have to be changed, for those who don't feel there is enough justification for a change to the table. So far "---" you have repeated the same thing eight different times and each time you have been ignored. All I am suggesting is an alternative, to stop the fighting. Put it to the vote, if it's voted down then I won't suggest it again. Darrenhusted 22:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather then say that it isn't considered a part of the WWE Triple Crown, I would rather it say that its standing in the WWE TC is disputed. Other then that issue I have no problem with your idea. Cheers, -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  00:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I Hate This
I really don't want to be a jerk, but I have to put my foot down. Consensus has been established, and we have compromised on a solution to the US Title debate. If you missed the discussion, that is no one's fault but your own. Do not remove the section on the US Title from the article no matter how strongly you feel about this. Consensus is established, grounds for adding this have been established, and a compromise has been settled on. You will live with the results of this discussion. I'm not giving anyone a choice. I will personally revert anyone who removes this and give you the entirely appropriate vandalism warnings. Removing this is disruptive and against consensus. I don't care if you are Jimbo Wales, Willy on Wheels, my mom, or anyone else. We have decided on what will be done with this article, and you will have to live with it. -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  05:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the US title should be mentioned but only WWE United States Champions should be mentioned since it is the WWE Triple Crown and NWA/WCW US Champions should not be mentioned here. If your that persistant on the matter I feel you should at least mention JBL and the Big Show. Im sorry if I offended or hurt you in any way. 5TimeWCWChamp 05:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I thought that you had deleted the entire section. I went back and removed the mention of the NWA/WCW US Titles, since this is the WWE TC. I left Edge and Kurt Angle, however, since they won the titles during the invasion angle. I removed the mention of Booker T winning it during the invasion since he won the US Title when it a WWE Title in name as well. Also, you didn't offend me, or hurt me. I was, and still am, so angry that this is even an issue. When I thought that you had deleted the entire US Title section saying in the edit summary that "This isn't relevant to an article on the WWE TC Championship" I just flipped. However, I am still flipped, and this warning still applies to anyone who is thinking about removing the US Title section. -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid, I want to thank you for the edits to the US title bit, I thought it was long but figured it was better to put it in and let it be changed rather than have the table amended again. Obviously the focus should be on those who could be TCC if the US was counted rather than those TCC who have won the US title. I hope that this paragraph will solve the US title debate. Darrenhusted 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just doing my job. Needless to say, I hope that this debate is over as well. -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  00:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Grand Slam Champion
Now that the US title debate has been quelled is it worth adding that if JBL were to be considered a TCC under the alternate definition then he would also be a Grand Slam Champion because of his European title win? Darrenhusted 14:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking a Wikibreak. Do whatever you feel is right, but defend the US Title section with your very life ;). Actually I'm serious. Peace, -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  20:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to move this page
I'd like to move this page to Triple Crown Championship, as this page is about the actual championship, and not the champions. What do y'all think? -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  22:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement. Darrenhusted 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll just go ahead and do it, and if anyone disagrees they can move it back. Cheers, -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  21:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
As far as the U.S. Title disclaimer goes:

Guys like Benoit, Guerrero, Edge, Booker, and Angle are already TC winners because they have the I-C Title, thus there is no debate over them.

It's JBL and The Big Show where the question arises.

These guys are "perhaps" TC winners because they have only the U.S. Title, not the I-C.

Personally, I think they should be added to the list because if the World Titles and the Tag Titles can be interchanged, then the 2 secondary belts should have the same treatment.

It is only because of technicalities and the OR police that we can't make it official.

But back to the point, Only JBL and The Big Show should be put in the "could be" list because the others have the I-C belt and thus they're in anyway.

Ohgltxg 19:54 28 January, 2007 (UTC)

It has been agreed not to add Cena, Ohgltxg, and adding Cena is treated as vandalism. I suggest that you read the archives. Darrenhusted 19:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My GOD! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH! ........ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH! We've already decided that they will not be added to the list. We held a discussion, and decided on this through acheiving consensus. It will not be challenged this soon after the debate. Anyway, the reason that they are on the list is because it is widely held that one can be a multi time TC champion. -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  19:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Rey Mysterio
So, if Rey Rey wins the IC Title what do we call him? He has also won the Cruiserweight title, so he would have won the four male titles. Is there a special name for that? Grand slam doesn't apply. -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  04:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

well i was reading a magazine a couple of years ago (i think 2004) and it sad something about an ALL TRIPLE CROWN when u have won all the championships on a brand

If Rey wins the IC I think we called him "talented". I kid, he'll be a triple crown champ because he won the World, Tag and IC titles. Jericho has won the european, cruiserweight title, the WCW TV title and WWF hardcore title, what do we call him? Darrenhusted 12:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

US title, one last time.
209.44.43.67 chose to re-write the US title section after Cena's Tag title win (congrats John), so that JBL and Big Show were listed alongside Cena (now legit), however the section had previously been amended to provide extra information with regards to previous winners. As this is an encylodepia the previous and now current version gave more information than the amended version so I have reverted it. Take note 209.4.43.67 that I have that version saved and any further edits will be immediately reverted, assuming John Cena doesn't win the IC title. Also bare in mind that JBL and Big Show are both currently inactive so there should be no need to change this section at the moment. Darrenhusted 12:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And to further clarify:- The Undertaker, Batista, Hulk Hogan, Mick Foley are all unlikely to win the IC title any time this year, and Rey Mysterio is currently injured. Test is on ECW and that title doesn't count, Val Venis is a jobber, Roddy Piper is ill, and none of Shelton Benjamin, Johnny Nitro, Jeff Hardy and William Regal are ever going to win a world title reign. With Cena's tag victory this page is pretty much stable, no further edits should happen unless Vince McMahon wins the IC title and Tag title in one night. To any unsigned users or anyone else pushing the US title agenda please just put a halt to your actions. Darrenhusted 12:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you add John Cena to the list you can add JBL and Big Show too. User:WrestlingFan 16:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

They are in the list. Darrenhusted 19:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverts
People take a look at the page as it is, if you change this page it will be viewed as vandalism (particularly if you are unsigned or do seven edits in a row), if you change it I will change it back. This page only needs altering if someone else completes the TNA triple crown or OVW triple crown. There are no real contenders to become WWE Triple Crown Champion so this page is pretty much done for the time being. Edit if you want but don't be disappointed if your work is reverted. You have been politely warned. Thank you. Darrenhusted 19:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't change the article, but the thing that I was trying to say in the footnote was that guys like Angle, Benoit, Edge, Guerrero, and Booker had both the I-C and U.S. belts, so they were covered either way, but guys like Show, JBL, and Cena is where the gray area falls.

Those three guys should be added to the main chart, because all logic and common sense says U.S. = I-C, but because the official decree never came down from Stamford, we can't.

But by adding Angle and the rest to the footnote, it just clutters that up, and really, the guys that only have U.S. Championships should be in the "should be, but aren't" list.

Ohgltxg 1:26 31 January, 2007 (UTC)

Ohgltxg I thank you for reverting the table but all this "should be 16th" "should be 20th" nonsense is not needed. A semi-protect is on now so that should stop the unsigned edits and table edits. Darrenhusted 22:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Potential Triple Crowns
It says above the list that all contenders who would be considered triple crown if it was not for the US title debate are not listed. Big Show and JBL were not on the list but John Cena was so I went ahead and took him out since he is in the same boat as them. Likewise, if you were to add Cena back to the potentials based on IC reigns, add Big Show and JBL as well. I went ahead and took John Cena out since he goes against the paragraph before the section. Just stating that its not vandalism, just correction since there is a heavy debate over this page at the moment. KonigBerserk 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You made the correct decision. Finally, someone who can use common sense! Everyone else should take a lesson from this guy right here. Cheers, -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Common sense prevails. Darrenhusted 14:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For those who have not read the archive
Be clear that the US title issues has been resolved. Any edits will be treated as vandalism. This page is semi-protected from the 30th January, leave it a month before requesting an un-protect. Thank You. Darrenhusted 12:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

.well fine dick weed then u change the fact that micheals is now the wwe tag chamion with cena

No personal attacks, and John Cena is in the article. It's called reading; you should try it sometime. -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  22:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I can live with a personal attack from someone who can't spell. Why should we change Shawn Michaels on this page, we already added Cena to the list of potential champions. I pray that next week he beats Jeff Hardy for the IC title and this whole mess goes away. Darrenhusted 14:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

About the archive
Archive 2's link doesn't work; can the person that archived it fix it? Thanks. Anakinjmt 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Triple Crown
Let me just say that the grammer, sentence structure, and information under the United States Championship sub-headline (headline Triple Crown) is horrible. It sounds as if people have trouble making a sentence that doesnt ramble on and repeat itself. Not to mention your contradictions in listed people. Also, because the United States Championship hasnt been stated to be a second-tier substitute by WWE, it makes no sense that you would add John Cena to the list of Triple Crown Champions (why not JBL or Big Show?). Fix your errors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.43.78 (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

That crap happens because of vandalism. We block the people who make those errors, but we are outnumbered. Just stop complaining, we are doing everything we can. -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  01:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

209.244.43.78, note Grammar, Doesn't or Does not and Hasn't or has not. Plus if you want the skinny on the whole US title debate have a read of the archives. Oh, and remember to sign! Darrenhusted 14:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Information
Steve Austin won his first World tag title on 5/25, not 5/26. Booker's first World tag title was with Test, not RVD. Edge's first WWE tag title was on 11/7, not 11/5. And RVD's first WWE tag title was on 12/9, not 12/7. (When titles change hands on Smackdown!, WWE recognizes the title change from when it's first televised.) Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.43.78 (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

United States Championship
It states on this page that: "WWE nor PWI have ever explicitly stated that the US title is equal to the Intercontinental Championship". Now personally i believe thats not true as if you see the Title History page on WWE.com, the US title is opposite to the IC title like the World is to WWE, World Tag is to WWE Tag and Cruiser to Womens. Belevsquad 11:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So your saying the Cruiserweight Championship is equal to the Women's Championship? semper fi — Moe  19:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In a way they are.

They are both "niche" or "specialty" championships. That means that those titles that are only avalible to certain wrestlers.

I.E. the Women's Title is only for women (I know, Duh!). And The Cruiserweight Belt is only for wrestlers under 220 lbs.

So yes, they do have a common thread.

Ohgltxg 20:56 3 February, 2007 (UTC)

Well, Belevsquad, find the page on WWE.com where is says that the US title is part of a triple crown championship, or grand slam. What you "personally believe" is not how Wikipedia is run. There is no source for this, and we have three archives of talk on the subject. Darrenhusted 17:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The US Title is the equal of the IC Title, this is a fact. The World Heavyweight Title and WWE Tag Team Titles are equals of the WWE Title and World Tag Team Title, also facts and accepted here. I don't see the problem, I have e-mailed JR's official website to see what he thinks, hopefully he responds on his site so all the haters can shut up. TJ Spyke 05:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the United States Championship should be equal to the Intercontinental Championship but as it has never been officially stated, it must be left out. Maybe the WWE sees the U.S. belt as being less than the I.C. belt but equal to the now defunct European Championship. If that is the case then there would be chances for newer talent to become Grand Slam Champions instead of wrestlers who have already held that particular title. - <font color="teal" face="Herculanum"> Deep <font color="purple" face="Herculanum"> Shadow  06:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ARTICLE
THE ARTICAL SHOULD LOOK LIKE WHAT IT DID 6 MONTHS AGO. THE NEW COLOURS LOOK AWFUL AND THE COLLOMS ARE UGLY. THERE IS NOT 1 REASON IN THE WORLD THAT THE UNITED STATES IS NOT EQUAL TO THE INTERCONTINENTAL CHAMPIONSHIP. CAN'T WE JUST AGREE THAT THERE EQUAL. WE ALL WANT WHATS BEST FOR THER ARTICLE. LOOK IF SOME IDIOT FOR SOME REASON STILL THINKS THAT THE UNITED STATES CHAMPIONSHIP IS NOT EQUAL TO THE INTERCONTINENTAL CHAMPIONSHIP I WILL WRITE A LETTER TO WWE. THEN WE CAN ALL AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.108.229.13 (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Shhhhh, don't yell. You might wake up some sleeping users. 2 people already have letters in to the WWE about this, and it isn't about whther or not they are equal. It is about sources. -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OMG YOU DON'T HAVE TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS! Also, the colors look MUCH better now. Also also, if you'd read the archives, you'd know about the whole debate over the US Championship. Anakinjmt 01:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

58.108.229.13 has gone and used up all our exclamation mark quota for the year. Darrenhusted 17:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing I agree with the shouting anon isthe color scheme is off. I'm not sure what it looks like on your computer Anakinjmt, but on mine, it's horrible. Some of the dates are hardly visible. semper fi — Moe  17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see a point, kinda, with the blue, but that begs the question: can we change the color of the text then? Because, the way the table is now, it's INCREDIBLY hard to see the colors, at least for me. I do think darkening the colors will make it much better, and the green and red and silver seem to be ok, so what else could we do for the blue, because the way it is now, I can't tell what's blue, what's red, and what's white. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anakinjmt (talk • contribs) 02:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

I've reverted the colours, the text is the most important thing, the box colour is just a helpful extra. And I think that all links are blue so we may not be able to change that, however you could change your Wikipedia settings. Darrenhusted 02:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What about <font color="Sky blue">Sky blue ? Cheers, -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  03:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not exactly what I think of when I think of Smackdown. But, on this monitor (I'm on a computer in a classroom at school, I'm not on my own computer), that is a little hard on the eyes, and the dark blue of the link...I'd have to actually see it, but I am starting to see more and more the problems with the colors put in earlier. Is it possible to just have like a corner of the box colored? Like, how CBS does things with Survivor and tribes. They list the tribe members and then put the color of their tribe in the corner like a little flag. Can we do something like that here? Is that possible? That would solve both problems: allow people to see the colors a lot better without disrupting the readability of the text. Can we do this? Anakinjmt 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it is possible, but then again coding isn't exactly my thing. In the end, why do we have to have red go with Raw and blue go with Smackdown? If it gets the point across... -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  00:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, blue with Smackdown and red with RAW make sense, seeing how the main color of Smackdown is blue and the main color of RAW is red. Anakinjmt 15:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's compromise, seeing as we need visible colors. How about we use beige for ECW, Pink for Raw, and Sky blue for Smackdown. Sound good? That way we make all of the colors light enough that it doesn't look bad, but appropriate color coding for each show is still used. That work? Peace, -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  22:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

ECW World Championship
I know this would have been touched on a 1,000 times before, but due to the fact the WWE, has put in their title section the entire title lineage of the ECW World Championship, (albeit from Shane Douglas' reign), with RVD, Big Show and Lashley being added to the list, does that not constitue the fact that the ECW World Champion shares the same lineage, much like the NWA, title has always shared it's lineage though being defended now in TNA. Peace & Chicken Grease Amigos The Legendary One 01:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And your point? Anakinjmt 15:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he wants to add RVD to the list of ECW triple crown champions, even though the disclaimer on the bottom of the page makes it clear that RVD is not and ECW TCC. 82.47.101.99 17:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The WWE has a nasty habit of rewriting history, and I'm hesitant to honor that. The WWE has acknowledged ECW as a brand of the WWE, but being an ECW TCC requires having won the ECW World Title from the independent promotion. -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok fair enough that's all I want to know, and by the way I did notice the disclaimer I wanted clarification before any action was undertaken. Peace and chicken grease amigos The Legendary One 02:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

ECW World Title
Somehow, I think you guys aren't getting something. I have recently seen this argument posted in numerous places and it always goes something like this:

The ECW Championship history was merged with WWE's!

or

Since PWI consider's the ECW title having a 'world title' status, shouldn't we include it on this list?

Ugh. No, for the billionth time. We only add the ECW championship if WWE considers it an acceptable alternative for 'Triple Crown' status. World title status has nothing to do with why the ECW title isn't listed here. Please keep this in mind. — Moe  ( Review Me ) 03:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

John Cena is not a potential champion
All people who have held the United States Championship is not listed because it mentions then in another section. Stop putting John Cena in the list of those that need an Intercontinental reign because he has had a US title reign so he is mentioned above that group. I have corrected it several times and it needs to stay like it is unless you take the paragraph above it out and put the Big Show and JBL in the IC section as well. KonigBerserk 21:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

He is a potential champion, JBL and Big Show aren't because they are no longer active wrestlers. I'm putting Cena back in because he has a world and tag reign (like the Unndertaker for example) and needs a IC title reign to be considered a TCC. The argument for the US title paragraph is to explain he is not a current TCC because the US title doesn't count as an alternate for the IC title. John Cena is not to be added to the current list of actual Triple Crown Champions, but there is no harm in listing him as a potential champion because he is actually carrying both titles that Pedro Morales and Bret Hart held as Triple Crown Champions (that is to say Hart was a WWF Champion and WWF Tag team champion, both of which reside around Cena's waist and neck as of this moment). His tag reign makes him a potential champion, not his US reign. Darrenhusted 02:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Those who would be considered potential Triple Crown Champions if the United States Championship is considered an equivalent to the Intercontinental Championship are not included in this list"

Notice this part in the paragraph above the section. John Cena has held the United States Championship so he fits the description above thus is not listed in this section. He is listed already in a prior section as a potential champion. Listing him in one section and then another section dedicated to other wrestlers is contradictory and not needed. KonigBerserk 03:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason Cena, Show, and JBL aren't in that section is because it would be redundant. If they are listed in the US Title section that means that they have won a World and Tag Title (in addition to the US Title) so the fact that they need an IC Title reign to be officially considered a TCC is obvious. We are simply letting the facts speak for themselves. Honestly, if Cena, Show, and JBL are added to the section I won't cry, but I do see it as redundant. Peace, -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  04:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The definition of a potential triple crown champion
A potential triple crown champion is one of the following:- A former World or WWE champion who has held the IC title but not the World or WWE tag team titles. A former IC title holder who has won the a Tag team belt but not a world title. A World or WWE champion who has held the World or WWE Tag team but not the IC title. As John Cena (up until a couple of weeks ago) had only held the WWE championship, and the US title he was not a potential champion because he had never held the IC ot Tag titles. However now he is the walking definition of a potential champion becuase he holds the WWE (formerly WWF) Heavyweight championship (the same one Flair, Hart and Morales have worn) and the WWE (formerly WWF) Tag Team chamionship (again the same championship worn by Morales, Hart and Flair) at the same time. Forget the US title as it doesn't count, and was the previous reason why Cena was always knocked off potential champions lists, but now he is the man most likely to become a triple crown champion, because he holds two of the three championships required. He stays on the potential list becuase he is more likely than Undertaker (currently on SD), Rey (currently injured and on SD) or Foley (currently not wrestling) to win the IC title. Leave him on the list. Darrenhusted 02:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider IF the US title counted towards it. John Cena would not be on the list, because he would then be considered a Triple Crown Champion. Due to circumstances, he is considered a potential champion because he held the US championship, not because all he needs is the IC title. Now, if he won the IC title, then he for sure would be, but he is already listed as a potential champion in one section; being in another section stating the same thing is redundant. Anakinjmt 04:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The operative word there is "if", it currently is not and so Cena is only a potential champion at this point. Darrenhusted 17:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes he is a potential champion but he is listed in another section. There is no need for him to be in 2 different sections because that is redundant. Not to mention it is confusing stating that people who have held the US title are not in that list yet he has won the US title and is in the list for those that need IC title. KonigBerserk 18:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, he's out of the US title section. Darrenhusted 19:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you do that then it seems like he hasn't won the US championship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KonigBerserk (talk • contribs) 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
 * No, because it's listed that if the US title would be considered acceptable, that Cena would be a TCC. Anakinjmt 20:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cena absolutely must be listed in the US Title section. There is no way around that. Now, by Wikipedia standards, Cena is a PTCC, but listing him in the two sections is redundant for reasons that I have already stated. However, if it will avoid another dispute, then let's list him in the PTCC section. We may even list a little disclaimer after him saying that he has held the US Title, but not the IC Title. Cheers, -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  20:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He already is a TCC, but some stubborn editors won't accept that the US Title is part of it. TJ Spyke 23:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Watch your tone. If you have proof that were all missing, then by all means give it, but don't snipe. — Moe  ( Review Me ) 23:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean the proof that we're all missing? We've provided everything but it being explicitly stated online! The only reason we're even doing this frustrating alternate section crap is to be nice to you. We have consensus and grounds to ignore everything that you're saying, but we're choosing not to. Whether you admit it or not, you are the only person who is keeping the US Title out of the main chart, and even that is at our leisure. We've provided more than enough proof to add it to the chart, and I'm considering just doing it and ending this whole thing. I am sick and tired of this crap. We have 3 people with e-mails into the WWE, you almost retired, 3 people had checkusers filed against them, I'm pissed off and have basically destroyed any chance I had of making admin anytime soon, the dispute leaked over on to the John Cena talk page, and the page is semi-protected indefinitely. WTF is wrong with us!?! Is this really worth it? -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  04:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Be..nice to me? That's a laugh. All I've been hearing is a bunch of bitching and moaning from IP addresses to established editors saying various insults towards me, the most common being "stubborn", "moron" and "idiot", and getting insulting e-mails which has gone up for the past 4 months last time I checked, and for what? Upholding policy. If your not the one writing e-mails to various people, and searching vigorously for anything verifiable, then you have no room to talk. And your stressed because there has been 1 CheckUser run? Give me a break. The proof I'm refering to is WWE or other sources, ANY SOURCE AT ALL, that proves it which still hasn't been provided (one did show up, but the author said it was nothing but original research done by himself, in fact he said he was writing a new article and would provide sources and be more in-depth next time and give me a copy). You have grounds to ignore everything I say, but you have no choice when it comes to decision-making regarding policy. Just because wrestling fans have believed over time that something without solid proof, doesn't mean that it's true. I just happened to find the statement false and the evidence, or lack there of, supports that. Readd it and it won't end, because it won't stop there. Has WWE ever responded to an e-mail? I don't believe they ever have, and even then e-mails aren't considered reliable sources (hell, I would allow it to be considered if WWE actually did respond, but they don't. EVER!). If your pissed off and sick and tired of it, Wikipedia isn't your place to vent. And trust me, being admin and running for adminship isn't all it's cracked up to be, you would have to deal with more than one situation like this before being even considered for adminship. Oh, and if your new to this game, I'm not retiring any time soon. — Moe  ( Review Me ) 06:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's cool down here.
Let's take a deep breath.

One thing needs to be understood here:

The U.S. Title should by all rights be included in the Triple Crown, but due to the rules here at Wikipedia, it can't be added until it is put in black and white somewhere from a reputable source.

As far as John Cena goes, he should be on the "unofficial" list with Big Show and JBL. The difference is that all Cena, Show, and JBL need is confirmation of a Title they already have won, while any potential champion needs to actually win a title.

Hybrid, I am with you 100% in saying that logic says the U.S. Title should be included, but there is no need to attack Moe. He is just following the rules, and calling him names isn't going to make him change his position.

You need to relax a bit yourself Moe.

Politely putting your point across might get both of you further.

Having a paragraph in the article that addresses the U.S. Title and acknowledging the 3 "unoffical" champions, is a very good compromise I think until we get 100% confirmation.

Ohgltxg 9:57 12 February, 2007 (UTC)
 * I never attacked Moe nor have I called him names, ever. That was TJ. Moe, the angry e-mails you have gotten over this comes with trying to be a one man army. Also, implying that I'm new to this could be taken as an attack. In addition, WP:IAR and WP:CONSENSUS are policies, grounds have been established to enact WP:IAR, and like it or not those anons who have provided proof count towards the final vote in the consensus. I have policy backing me up. Do I think checkusers are a big deal, no, but it is when you take into account that this is already going down as one of the most idiotic disputes in WP:PW history. The proof provided may not meet the grounds for sources, but the sheer quantity guarantees that this is not something that wrestling fans have thought wrongly for years. The US Title is equal to the IC Title, this is a fact, we have proven it, and this dispute must end. Let me say that I hold no malice towards you as you are simply being bold, but I feel that you are being too stubborn with this. WP:IAR exists for a reason. This is a proven fact, and simply ignoring that because it isn't stated word-for-word hurts this article. Like it or not, that is the truth. -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  23:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why doesnt someone from the U.S call and/or write to PWI, and try and get confirmation on the situation, seems like a logical step to take in my books. Peace and chicken grease amigos The Legendary One 02:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We have 3 people with emails in to the WWE, but as Moe has mentioned the WWE never replies. I'll check and see if I am able to email the PWI, but since I'm not a subscriber I may not be able to. Cheers, -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  02:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't subscribe, but I have e-mailed PWI before and got a response (which I even posted here on Wikipedia, regarding whether ECW champs prior to August 1999 are considered world champs. The reply was that PWI does NOT consider them world champs). I have e-mailed JR's official site to see if I can't get a response from him since he does answer some e-mails in his blog. Hybrid, I don't recall attacking Moe or calling him names. TJ Spyke 00:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not explicitly, but he took it that way, and I took it as you referring to him. If I'm mistaken I apologize, but... -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  00:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

ECW
An intresting comment was made on RAW a few weeks bak on Raw. When Kenny challenged Lashley for the ECW title both Kenny and Vince made mention that he would become the youngest WWE champion ever. As Kenny is already a former tag champ, this meant they were referring to the fact he would be the youngest world champion in WWE history. It was actually Vince who said that winning the match would make Kenny "the yougest WWE champion" in history. Notice he said WWE champion and not ECW champion. This means that the ECW title is viewed as Equal to the other 2 world titles in WWE and therefore considered in the Triple crown champion section. I'm not going to add it I would first like to see a response.--24.184.169.37 08:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing:

The ECW Title should be part of the TCC because when it was made an option for the Royal Rumble winner to choose, that put it in the the same class as the WWE or World Titles.

The U.S Title should also be part of the TCC because when you look at WWE.com's title history page, they have all of the belts placed on a chart that shows that Raw Belt X is the equal of (or analogous to) Smackdown Belt Y. That I feel is a visual illustration of proof of how WWE sees the U.S. belt (linking it to the I-C title).

However, others may see it differently, and that's where the problems start. When something can be taken differently by multiple people, it can't be concretely stated as fact. A statement like calling Kurt Angle a Grand Slam winner leaves nothing to doubt.

So unless Wiki loosens up the rules or WWE/PWI puts out a definitive statement, then we're going to be stuck in a stalemate till the cows come home.

Ohgltxg 22:33 14 February, 2007 (UTC)
 * The other thing too is I don't know if the resurrected ECW title has been granted world status by whatever wrestling association that does that. WWE stating it is is all well and good and all, but without the official association granting it, it's not really valid. Granted, if WWE states it counts towards their TCC, then it's end of story, but until they do, we can't be sure unless they do state it or that association (whoever it is) officially grants it world status. Anakinjmt 14:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The ECW Title has been granted world status according to PWI and that is an official source. It was defunct until it was resurrected in the middle of 2006 but it has been considered a World Title since it's reactivation. At least according to this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Number_of_World_Title_Reigns Bobby Lashley is considered a 1 time world champion and RVD is considered 2 time world champion and they have only gotten World Tittle reigns since their ECW championship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KonigBerserk (talk • contribs) 16:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

WTF?? Don't you people read the rest of the page. World Championship status doesn't automatically part of the Triple Crown. It's only determined by WWE or a reliable outside source. — Moe  02:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Unofficial Champions Chart
Just leave it for now. We can discuss that thing later. It gets the point across, and the chart isn't hurting anything at the moment. Don't we have enough to argue about? -- <font color="Blue">The <font color="Red">Hyb <font color="Green">rid  22:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Darrenhusted 23:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)