Has the Triple Crown (WWE) lost meaning?
 

It's easier because there are two tag titles and two World titles, but since it doesn't happen THAT often, I;m gonna go with no.

Granted, Jeff Hardy also reached Triple Crown status last year, but before that it was Randy Orton, and before that it was Booker T.

Yes, it's lost all meaning considering WWE has 7 titles that count towards it. All the titles have lost all meaning. In the 90s and 80s, you had 3 champions and the titles were all regarded as an achievement rather than an accessory.

Yes, the size of the roster does have an affect on this, but that's why this should scale. Right now the Triple Crown/Grand Slam levels are out and unless you've won the 7 major titles it shouldn't be viewed as an accomplishment, barring those who achieved the goal when the three/four titles were the only titles in existence.

Triple crown now means obtaining the ECW, World Heavyweight, and WWE titles.

^ Triple Crown is WWE/WHC, IC and Tag

The title of "Triple Crown" winner doesn't amount to anything. What people actually remember and what is important are the individual runs. That's why when you compare CM Punk or Kane as a Triple Crown winner they look terrible compared to someone like Flair, Nash, Triple H (yeah, Grand Slam, but whatever).

Why should this be the standard when there are more titles in the picture? And including the WHC is foolish when excluding the US title, as per my reply to the other thread.

I get what you're saying, but wouldn't allowing more belts to be included amount to more wrestlers being able to achieve Triple Crown status thus making the Triple Crown title lose ALL meaning?

Only the World tag titles count, should've made that clear in my initial post :$

Of course, which is why I suggested making the new "Triple Crown" standard a 7 title "crown".

When you have multiple titles on similar levels you have to adapt. If the IC or WWE Tag titles were regarded as much higher than their counterparts you'd have a point, but they aren't.

You're right, that is crap, but I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I would say the IC title, in the WWE Universe, is regarded higher than the US title. You have point with the tag tittles thought.

Color me wrong then :-\

Just remembered the World Tag title is the one with the WWF Tag title lineage, they really fucked that one up.

Slightly higher, but still in the same bracket.

Only Eddie and Angle I think

To add to this, IF we're assuming the IC title is higher than the US title, why doesn't the US title count towards a Grand Slam crown? It would be on the same level as the European title.

But why does the WHC count, then?

I would suggest splitting these across the two major brands (SmackDown! triple crown and RAW triple crown) but rosters and titles change between brands too often for it to be viable.

WWE should really address this.

Didn't I make a thread on this less than a month ago?

So at the very least, CM Punk is a Brand Triple Crown winner.

Which may or may not have been mentioned already :shifty:

You are infact only saying this because fo Punk, and imo it never had meaning at all. The grand slam is the only thing that's ever had meaning.

Even before the European title was instated?

Yes. Triple was never a very big deal and was very rarely mentioned and even less than that was it noticed.

That's ridiculous reasoning considering WWE only really pushed the Grand Slam deal on Michaels.

Clearly.

Did you guys even watch back then? I don't think they even mentiond this accomplishment a single time.

"accomplishment"

If we're gonna talk about shit that's lost meaning we should talk about mid card titles, the actually matterd...

So basically you're saying if it wasn't a big deal in kayfabe it doesn't matter.

Because the Grand Slam was such a big deal after the Michaels storyline, right?

This was established and agreed upon years ago.

Yeah

This is true

To add on this if it has no value in kayfabe then the "meaning" it has is the meaning you give it in your mind. Which is worthless.

yeah

That would depend on how the WWE played it up. It's only relevent if people care. Like Punk beating the record for quickest triple crown. Sure it's a fin factoid for us nerds but really means fuck all. HBM's grandslam? Pretty big deal though. It's all image and perception.

We're debating over fake championships. None of it, the WWE title, the WHC, the NWA title or whatever always meant "fuck all".

I totally disagree but you're really changing the subject. We're talking perception here and these things mean a whole hell of a lot if you make them to.

That's like saying the ending to Die Hard means "fuck all."

exactly

You take that back.

Honestly, going by what you're saying, the ONLY Grand Slam champion that should be recognized from an "accomplishment" point of view is Michaels. I cannot remember the last time they even mentioned someone being a grand slam champion other than in passing once or twice.

It was done once, 13 years ago. To fans today, 13 years ago means jack shit and the only ones who really remember it are us nerds. It has one leg up on the triple crown, but that doesn't nullify the original triple crown.

they mentioned it here recently for hardy. JR went through the list of most who did it. Same when RVD made the list and others.

They don't even acknowledge the existance of Triple crown.

Oh no?

http://www.wwe.com/superstars/hallof...romorales/bio/

Career Highlights: WWE Champion, Intercontinental Champion, World Tag Team Champion, first "Triple Crown" winner in WWE history, won several regional championships in Florida and California

The website is your defense? Come on Xero.

It means nothing.

Triple Crown mattered when there were only 3 titles, so it was impressive.

Grand Slam was even more "elite" when a 4th title was added.

Triple crown means nothing now with all the titles, as you are just winning 3/7.

Now, Edge I think has won 6/7 titles, so if he wins the US title he with me a Septuple Crown winner, which would be cool.

You can't dismiss it if it's on the official site. I just proved the existence of the Triple Crown in the "WWE Universe". I'd assume it was mentioned when Morales first won it and I'm sure it was mentioned during his induction into the Hall of Fame.

If someone can confirm the HoF bit, I've solidly confirmed the triple crown's existence. Or are you going to dismiss that as well?

Edge hasn't won the US title?

HoF and I will give some small credit. Though I can almost garuntee that "Triple Crown" wasn't mentiond when he won the final belt in his collection.

Shit, he went in in 1995. Thought it was 2004.

I'll still prove it, though.

But he does need to pick up the ECW Championship to complete his "Septuple Crown".

Now that could be viewed as an achievement.

Plus he won the King of the Ring, and Mitb. A Devils Septuple Crown

Oh yeah, my bad

Anyways, I've made my feelings clear on the Triple Crown/Grand Slam thing in the other thread, but to some up:

Pre Euro Title the Triple Crown meant something.

Post Euro Title the Grand Slam meant something, the Triple Crown meant less.

In today's WWE neither the Triple Crown nor Grand Slam mean shit to me personally.

I guess an argument could be made that if the guy has picked up the 3 titles from the one show at any given time then it's a pretty big achievement. But if we are arguing that both the WWE and WHC are counted and/or the World/WWE Tag Titles are included then I don't buy it.

Then add a Rumble win and he's collected it all.

You know what, because of Added titles, retired titles, this is all irrelevant.

And thus winning a "Triple Crown" in today's WWE is irrelevant...which leads nicely to the question that we are discussing.

They most certainly did. They didn't use the term "Triple Crown" but when Bret Hart completed it in 1992, they brought up that he was only the second guy ever to do it, and cited Pedro Morales as the first. They mentioned it again when Diesel became the first guy to do it in under a year.

I also just saw a Morales match where they mentioned the fact he was the first to hold all three titles.

I guess this comes down to whether they actually need to use the term "Triple Crown", because with that and Carl's post the idea of the triple crown was pushed. And let's face it, that's just splitting hairs.

So deal with it Destor, the Triple Crown exists, or at least did, in kayfabe and thus brings it back up to where the Grand Slam was.

Though this is all moot now, since it means even less than it did when the Grand Slam or Triple Crown were the only deal in town.

does this question even need to be asked?

The Triple Crown should be wiped away, and now replaced with winning all 3 brand titles.

So Punk needs WWE title, Taker, Edge and HHH need the ECW title, Kane needs the WHC, Big Show needs WHC, Jericho needs ECW, and I think that is it.

That is all they need.

The Triple Crown would be replaced by the Quintuple Crown.

Also known as a Grand Slam

Diminished, yes. Lost, I would say not completely.
It's all very hard to determine anyways.

It depends on what you thought it originally meant. Of course as time goes on it's going to expand. That's like asking if the 500 hr or 3000 hit club has lost meaning. Not just because the membership goes up over time naturally, but because there's a tainted era. It's a crapshoot.

So as far as current WWE title/triple crown worth goes, I'd say accomplishing it now means a bit less than before, but it still does require winning a world title. Although winning a world title may be twice as easy as it was back then, it's still winning a world title.

To me, the triple crown is stupid anyways since whether or not you win a tag team title doesn't neccesarily determine your worth as a wrestler. It just means you were half of an over tag team, or were packaged in one after you got over.
IC title is a far less exclusive club.
So it all comes down to the World title. It only really means as much as that does.
There's plenty of wrestlers who are high up in worth and accomplishment who aren't triple crown, or even world champions. Straps can be deceiving.

I still like to think it means something. Some would say title belts don't matter very much anyways since they're props that vary in meaning over eras. Being a world champion may mean less now than it did 5 years ago. However, being a world champ 10 years ago may mean more than it did 15 years ago. There'd be a solid argument for that.

So whatever. I prefer Grand Slam if anything, but it's hard to prove any meaning.