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.