Talk:Grand Slam (professional wrestling)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Change the WWE criteria?

Now that the brand split is over, the World Heavyweight Championship has become secondary to the WWE title and no longer main events its pay-per-view events unless there is no WWE title match for some reason. Should it now be considered a Secondary title in this article, and therefore the Intercontinental title changed to a Tertiary title?50.98.18.29 (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

I'm not a heavy wikipedia editor or user, so I don't really know the proper way or place to raise this issue. As a result, I figured I would just bring it up here. Anyway, I've watched a lot of pro wrestling for twenty years now, and I am wondering why this article exists. A "Grand Slam Champion" isn't really an accomplishment that WWE regularly recognizes. It's a term that Shawn Michaels used to describe himself once or twice in heel promos and the only other reference made to it appear to be two or three really obscure references in WWE.com articles (Who reads those, anyway?) that are separated by several years each. It seems to be much more of a fan-created "accomplishment" created by Michaels' offhand comments that has never really been acknowledged on television as noteworthy or in any other major WWE resources aside from the minimal website references. It hardly seems to reach an encyclopedic level of importance. --Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.25.13 (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

he did say that to describe his accomplishments but if you knew anything its real tna talks about aj being the only one in tna wwe ad an section on it in the magizine its posted on their site when another completes it so yeah its real not fan made Black60dragon (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Five Belt Champions

A user keeps adding this to the page. I've done several google searches and have found nothing about this supposed championship. It appears to be OR that was made up by the user since there is no official definition of this championship. Besides, even if it was real, it wouldn't belong here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

United States Championship

There is a problem with this article. First off, I added JBL to the Grand Slam Champion table due to his being former WWE Champion, World Tag Team Champion, European Champion, and United States Champion. It clearly states on this page that the WWE/WWF title and World Heavyweight title are interchangeable as well as the World Tag and WWE Tag team titles. Now it is clear that the Intercontinental title and the U.S. title are equivalents, so why doesn't JBL's U.S. title reign earn him a spot on this list? Furthermore if JBL doesn't belong on this list, neither does RVD. He was not the European Champion, he only "unified" the European and Intercontinental titles, so he never actually carried the European title as JBL did. Plus there's no reference in place for RVD's placement on this list. Xvxaderynxvx talk 18:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no official source that says that US title can be used in the Grand Slam, however obvious it may seem. RVD won the European title. His reign may have only lasted one second since it was a unification, but he still won the title. JBL never won the IC title, so no dice. Plus, WWE hasn't mentioned the Triple Crown or Grand Slam in so long. There are sources stating that the WHC and WWE tag team championships count. No such source exists for the US title, and Wikipedia operates on facts, per WP:V and WP:RS. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this source count?[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.84.137 (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Something I noticed about the references

The second paragraph under "World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment" says that WWE stated "Michaels was the first-ever Grand Slam Champion, capturing the European Championship once, the World Tag Team Championship four times, the Intercontinental Championship three times and the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships a total of four times."

However, if you follow the reference provided to Michaels' WWE page (ref #1), it doesn't say that. In the 4th paragraph on that page it says "He was WWE’s first-ever Grand slam Champion, holding the European Championship, World Tag Team Championship, the Intercontinental Title and WWE Championship." Does this mean that the WHC is no longer considered a substitute for the WWE Championship?

And also, reference #2 doesn't seem to lead anywhere. With no reference to support it, can the WWE Tag Team titles still be considered as an alternate to the WWF/World Tag Titles? HidyHoTim (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If we simply copied the ref then that would be a breach of copyright. The paraphrasing does not affect the ref. The Kurt ref needs to be resourced. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand not copying the reference verbatim, and I'm not saying we should. But nowhere in the ref does it say that the WHC is a part of the GSC. In the ref it says Michaels became the GSC by specifically winning the Euro, Tag, IC and WWE; and that Michaels also won the WHC later on. But it isn't evident in the reference that they are related, like the paraphrased section says they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HidyHoTim (talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I can clear up the US title discussion very easily. On page 62 and 63 of the May 2009 issue of WWE Magazine, they have an article on the Triple Crown Club. In it they explicitly state the terms of membership. They are and I quote "To qualify as a Triple Crown Champion, a WWE Superstar must win either the WWE Championship or World Heavyweight Championship, the Intercontinental Championship, and either the World or WWE Tag Team Championship." I would imagine that WWE Magazine as a source published by WWE is an acceptable source. This should also confirm these titles as part of the WWE Grand Slam since by necessity you must be a Triple Crown Champion in order to be a Grand Slam Champion. The article goes on to mention in a sidebar or the right hand side of the chart that the US title does not count for the Triple Crown (which obviously impacts its potential in the Grand Slam). But they also ask readers to email Magazine@wwe.com to tell them your opinion on whether the US Titles is Triple Crown material. So while the US Title is not currently a part of this accomplishment, it could become part of it if enough fans choose to email WWE at the above address and provide their opinions. hint, hint. By the way in case it was overlooked there was absolutely NO mention in this article of the ECW title, which is unfortunate. Because I agree with those who feel the ECW belt is getting shafted every week. TO that effect I was one of the fans who did email them and also asked for a similar article on the Grand Slam. Hopefully they will do so and that will pin down once and for all what is and is not acceptable. Additionally, here is the weblink to the article I mentioned on WWE.com to use as a source. I checked this link and noticed that it had been updated by WWE to include Rey Mysterio, whereas the printed article did not. However, the printed article mentioned Rey as needing only the IC belt which he then won at WM25. I point this out to show that this is a reference that can be checked on periodically to see if the WWE at some point does update the Triple Crown to have the US (and maybe one day the ECW) title to the to list. http://www.wwe.com/magazine/9660498/featureoftheweek20090423a/. Rick 11:21, 11 May 2009

Hardcore Championship

When was it decided this was eligible for a Grand Slam Championship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.248.169 (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It never was. I'm alerting someone to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linknumbers (talk • contribs) 03:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a reliable source with-in the article that states it is apart of the Grand Slam. Unless you have a source that states it never was, never will be, or isn't anymore, then it is still apart of the Grand Slam and will stay with-in the article.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WWE Triple Crown Status

On the requirements for a triple crown champion how come winning the U.S. Title does not qualify a wrestler? For example Matt Hardy won the ECW title and has won the U.S. title as well as three different tagteam titles. Is he a triple crown champion?63.88.161.101 (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No. I suggest you read the archive on the Triple Crown Championship. The ECW title does not count, the US title does not count, the WCW tag titles do not count. This page and the Triple Crown page make clear what counts, those are the titles listed on the grid, WWE/WHC as primary, then IC as secondary then WWE Tag and World Tag as a team belt then the Euro for the Grand Slam. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

JR actually mentioned the Gram Slam in relation to Jeff Hardy during Unforgiven stating that if Hardy had won the scramble he would have become the seventh Grand Slam champion. So that clarifies what's already on the page. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What belt was the scramble for? Anyway guys, even if we say the IC title is the only secondary, surely the US title would at least be another tertiary option then? DB (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Other Potential Champions

I added a listing for all of the other current WWE employees that are eligible to be a Grand Slam Champion based on their being a former European Champion. PJasnica 17 Sept 08 0323

We don't need to list potential potential champions. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Edge a grand slam champion? I don't know all the dates but if you check his title reigns he has won every title except European title but does have a Hardcore Title to his name so surely that means he is just like Kane and Booker T who both have Hardcore but not European. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.46.160 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

To clearify what a WWE Grand Slam Champion is...

People like to include wrestlers who are not Grand Slam Champions or do not have a chance to become Grand Slam Champions in this article. First thing to remember is a reign as the WWE European Champion is required, so those who are still missing it will not have a chance to be a Grand Slam Champion unless WWE activates the European Championship. Another thing to remember is that WWE has yet to recognize certain championships as Grand Slam titles. The most common non-Grand Slam titles that show up here are the ECW Championship and the WWE United States Championship. One more thing: deceased wrestlers are not potential Grand Slam champions. While wrestlers like Owen Hart and Davey Boy Smith were one championship short, I'm sorry to say that they will not ever win another championship. Before you edit, make sure you know what a WWE Grand Slam Champion and a potential champion really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.184.131 (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Change the article title?

Should the article be titled "WWE Grand Slam Championship"? The only two Grand Slam Championships that have existed in professional wrestling are the WWE version and the WCW version, and the WCW version was never accomplished. Unless TNA or a prominant promotion in the future introduces a third-tier championship, the WWE version will be the only accomplished Grand Slam Championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.184.131 (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I say leave it as is, because with the introduction of the Legends Championship, maybe an official TNA Grand Slam is possible. --Fahqall (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

should we add the amateur wrestling grand slam i say we should because theres not one on wikipedia and this is a wrestling grandslam page Black60dragon (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well here's the thing. The article currently contains information about a professional wrestling subject. Of course we can agree that professional wrestling and amateur wrestling are two different things. With that in mind, there are a number of different ways we can go about the situation. The current article can be renamed to List of Grand Slam Champions in professional wrestling while a new article can be created named List of Grand Slam Champions in amateur wrestling or List of NCAA Grand Slam wrestling champions, thus leaving this current page name (Grand Slam Championship) to serve as a disambig page. I will also mention the possibility of splitting the WWE and TNA portions of the current article into their own articles, perhaps as List of WWE Grand Slam Champions and List of TNA Grand Slam Champions, but on second thought that concept seems redundant at this time.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

i say if we were to, add it here and put a small description because there isnt very many but its still a grand slam and being there isnt one on wikipedia and its probably one of the hardest to complete i think it needs to be on here somewhere Black60dragon (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Matt hardy

As he needs only a world title (possibly ECW) to become a grandslam champion. shouldnt he be on the list of potential champions needing 1 title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.101.217 (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, nor Mark Henry or anyone else that still needs to or more championship wins. Hardy has won the World Tag and European, still needs World and IC title reigns. Only someone who needs one more title should be listed. The section of more than one title should be removed because it isn't needed.WillC 15:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed Matt Hardy from the list, as it is for wrestlers who only have to win one more title to become a Grand Slam Champion. -FahQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahqall (talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrestlers not employed by the WWE

As Jeff Jarret and Christian Cage both only need a top tier championship should they be included as potential champions with a note saying that they do not work for the company at present or should it be left at only wrestlers currently employed by WWE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.91.112 (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No they should not be told because that is speculation that they will ever get the chance to become champions. Only people who need one title and currently work for WWE should be mentioned.--WillC 01:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No speculation about Christian eh? =) DB (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTALL^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrestlers who would need the European Championship

Should we add a section like that? Some wrestlers have WWE/WHC, IC and Tag, but not the European. Brady4mvp (Talk) 23:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The European Title is dead and it is speculation that it will ever return. No point in the section.--WillC 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that we should mention the wrestlers that WOULD need the European title to become Grand Slam Champions. Brady4mvp (Talk) 00:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It still isn't needed. You saying they need the title is still speculation they will ever get the chance. It would be a useless section--WillC 01:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The list is Punk, Orton and Edge. 75.45.180.172 (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Punk can never be a Grand Slam Champion, the only acceptable third tier championships have since been retired from WWE, and since Punk cannot win the title, he cannot be a Grand Slam Champion. — Moe ε 00:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I know this. Just stating the wrestlers that would need the European title. I don't know why you mentioned just Punk, because Edge and Orton also could never be Grandslam champs. 75.45.195.125 (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Kane

I've just remembered an old article that was featured on WWF.com back in 2001 mentioning Kane as a Grand Slam Champion. Here is the headlines page that features the article's summary and here is a copy of the full article since sadly the full WWF.com article page doesn't seem to be in the Internet Archive. Although that being said, the article did mention Kane as "being the only Grand Slam Champion of his variety" so I'm not exactly sure if it's listworthy. -- Oakster  Talk  20:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

With the Intercontinental Championship currently in hand, Kane has become the only superstar in World Wrestling Federation history that has held that title as well as the Federation, Hardcore and Tag Team titles.

Interesting, since WWE is how we verify what they consider a Grand Slam and Triple Crown Championship to begin with, the Hardcore title seems worthy of inclusion as a second third tier championship. — Moe ε 00:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added the WWE Hardcore title to the list of titles for inclusion as it substituted the European Championship in the case of Kane. Since the World Heavyweight Championship and WWE Tag Team Championships were included on the same basis, I thought it was only accurate to do the same here. I tried researching the United States and ECW Championship for references for their inclusion, but I could still not find anything. In fact, I found a story on bleacherreport.com on JBL's Intercontinental Championship/Grand Slam Championship win and saw it say that he won the U.S. Championship but that it isn't part of the Grand Slam. — Moe ε 03:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the WWF, it is different now. One mention isn't good enough in this case since multipe others have done the same as Kane and they never mentioned it ever again. Plus how is bleacherreport.com a reliable source? The difference with the World and WWE Tag titles is they are easily seen as equals. The Hardcore isnt even mentioned by WWE anymore.--WillC 03:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't found anyone who has completed only under the Hardcore Championship other than Kane as of yet. WWE interviewed Kane and acknowledged the Hardcore Championship as a third tier title. WWF.com and WWE.com past and present are the same reference and its reliability does not diminish because of the time period of eight years. It would be more of original research to remove it now that there is a reliable reference for this. There is very little mention of the Grand Slam Championship at all on WWE.com, and WWE doesn't straight up define the WWE Tag Team Championship as part of the Grand Slam Championship either, but we include it here because Kurt Angle was described as a Grand Slam Champion based upon WWE.com. Wikipedia editors do not define what WWE considers part of the Grand Slam, WWE does. The point I was making with bleacherreport.com is that as opposed to finding something that supported the U.S. or ECW title being part of the Grand Slam, I found the opposite. Last, WWE does acknowledge the Hardcore Championship, it is listed under the former titles section on WWE.com. — Moe ε 03:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

But they don't speak of it. Angle, Hardy, etc all won the Hardcore title and when articles were released on Angle becoming a Grand Slam they didn't mention his Hardcore title win after he won it. Look at RVD. They didn't say anything there. I believe we should talk about this at WT:PW, considering no one really watchlists this page. Plus you've already mentioned it being 8 years and even though it might be OR to remove it now. 8 years is a long time and WWE likes to rewrite history any time they can. They might have changed the rules after a bit. The Hardcore title is no longer mention on WWE TV. Just as much as Beniot is no longer mentioned.--WillC 04:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

They speak of the European Championship just as little as the Hardcore Championship, so that point is irrelevant. I would like to see these 'articles' about Hardy and Angle, about how it talks about their Grand Slam accomplishment, because I have never seen it. There is no reference for Hardy's accomplishment on this article and the reference for Angle is more obscure than Kane's reference. About RVD, his WWE alumni reference doesn't say anything about the Grand Slam anymore, but says:

"Since signing with WWE in July 2001, Rob Van Dam has been equally impressive, racking up two World Tag Team Championships, a WWE Tag Team Championship, and six WWE Intercontinental Championships which saw RVD unify the Intercontinental Championship with the WWE Hardcore Championship and WWE European Championships before retiring both of those titles."

So WWE does acknowledge the Hardcore Championship as an accomplishment, FWIW. The point is, there is nothing to say that the Hardcore Championship isn't an accomplishment and there has been a reference provided stating that it is. Unless WWE actually does rewrite history and says that it is no longer a feat for the Grand Slam Championship, I don't see how we can exclude it on the grounds that the reference is old. Benoit is no longer mentioned on T.V. for the sake of not pouring salt in wounds and has no relevance here, but despite that, Benoit is still acknowledged in championship histories on WWE.com. — Moe ε 04:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Although, I just recently looked it up and Booker T completed the Grand Slam under the Kane definition. — Moe ε 04:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is just nonsense. We know the definition for grand slam champion and the hardcore title is not in it. Remove Kane and Booker, they don't belong on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.50.88 (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You have laid out your point of view so well, and yet you are so completely wrong. Booker and Kane stay, any further removal will be seen as vandalism. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WWE recognized the Hardcore Championship as a championship in the Grand Slam on thier official website. So sorry, — Moe ε 22:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So where's kurt angle on your new list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.50.88 (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He held the European and IC titles at the same time, so he's been on this list for years. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Angle is on the list. He is currently listed as the fifth person. — Moe ε 07:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to drag up old discussion, but there is this quote from earlier in the thread which I also recalled:

"JR actually mentioned the Gram Slam in relation to Jeff Hardy during Unforgiven stating that if Hardy had won the scramble he would have become the seventh Grand Slam champion. So that clarifies what's already on the page. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)"

I know it's not our place to speculate whether JR or the web editor are more valid as sources for WWE policy, but JR's definition obviously doesn't include Kane and Booker T as Grand Slam Champions or Hardy would have been the potential 9th Grand Slam Champion, not the 7th. Are transcripts of WWE broadcasts available online? If not (or if this isn't strong enough evidence) it's worth bearing in mind that WWE's definition may have changed (or be variable.)BlakeNJudge (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You can not speculate whether they might or might not have changed the definition. It stays unless you have something to say otherwise. — Moe ε 00:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

This page is for discussion to make the article better, but I'm going to use it to give people a heads up, that some may start adding a TNA Grand Slam on this page. A.J. Styles recently won the TNA Legends Championship, so some IPs believe he is the first Grand Slam champion, even though TNA have said nothing about this and they seem to love the Triple Crown, so they would love the Grand Slam just as much. Remove it on site, since it doesn't exist.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 22:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

TNA Grand Slam

is aj styles now not the first tna grand slam champion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.111.22 (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote from A.J. Styles: When he captured the TNA Legends Championship, he became the first, and only, man to have won the TNA Grand Slam.

Therefore he is a Grand Slam Champion! Timothy da Thy (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for other Wikipedia pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Legends Championship is not an official TNA Championship. TNA have made no mention of the Grand Slam. The following things are needed for the Grand Slam to be real.

1. A source from TNA of the Grand Slam's existence
2. A source of what makes the Grand Slam

Bring thoses, not fan made ideas.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 17:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It was said on Spike that he was a Grand Slam champ.--70.73.43.100 (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

When? and where is your source?--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 02:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

He used the March 19th edition of iMPACT! it was announced officialy by Mike Tenay. It will soon be up on YouTube for viewing and proof. I say we add it.''''[[User:Klrobinson93|<font color="red">₭lrobinson</font>]][[User talk:Klrobinson93|<font color=red>93</font>]]''' (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

One mention doesn't mean it exist. That could be changed next week and never mentioned again. Plus Youtube isn't a reliable source.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 02:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Then watch the show Saturday morning because the words 'first TNA Grand Slam Champion' comes out of the mouth of Impact commentator Mike Tenay. Stop being such a dictator on what is or is not a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juniorlizard (talk • contribs) 05:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

When on Impact did Tenay say this line? I don't recall him saying it. I would also recommend waiting until TNA's site says something. TJ Spyke 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I watched TNA's re-play Saturday an Tenay spoke very clearly. It wasn't like a small note. Tenay seemed to worship AJ for this accomplishment. I don't think a article on TNA's site would tell more than Tenay did. He seemed to have a man crush on AJ.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 00:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh, OK. I'm sure i'm not the only one that thinks the Legends Title is nothing but a joke anyways (just like counting the Hardcore Title is). TJ Spyke 02:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, the Legends Belt means a bit to me now that AJ has won it, but I still think they should have waited till they made another title for people who shouldn't win the X or world. Maybe like the TNA International Heavyweight Championship. That complete the Grand Slam. I have a feeling TNA are going to do something interesting. Tenay said he completed the Grand Slam by winning all of TNA's titles. They are probably going to have stages in TNA. That Aj is a Grand Slam champion on level one, then another title will be introduced and he'll be a Gold Champion or something along those lines.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Legends belt needs to be listed as a third tier belt because as it is now it appears as though all you need is the X division or Legends title beings their both listed as 2nd tier. WWE has Euro and Hardcore as third so Legends on TNA needs to be too for clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.167.109 (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

TNA don't say if it is a thid teir or second. WWE have stated the European and hardcore are third teir. TNA seem to have the legends and x at the same level.--WillC 02:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Just like to have my input - it was acknowledged at Sacrifice too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.11.249 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who still might not be convinced that the TNA Grand Slam exists, here is an excerpt from a rare interview with TNA President Dixie Carter. Here are Dixie Carter’s comments about a few more topics: AJ STYLES “Simply PHENOMENAL. He has taken the in-ring product to another level and is really starting to embrace his own stardom, which is a big part of being a star. I am so proud when I hear the ovation he gets around the world when he enters the arena; it usually is the loudest of the night. He has helped build TNA. AJ is the first and only TNA Grand Slam winner, and his time is just beginning.” And here is the link to the article http://www.tnawrestling.com/content/view/1575/84/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraith Wolf (talk • contribs) 12:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Sting be added to the potential TNA Grand Slam Champions list?? He’s only missing one Title, the X-Division Title.--Prince Patrick (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sting is missing two titles. In addition to the X-Division title hes never held the TNA Legends/Global Championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.136.129 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No future reign possible?

I understand say, under Eddie Guerrero or the European championship, but why is this listed under Kurt Angle or Booker T? It's not like people have EVER left and come back before, so future reigns, are in fact possible, am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.82.26 (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Try reading to the bottom of the article, there is a key, with numbers. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point considering Booker T was just in the 2011 rumble and stayed on to announce. DB (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

But this makes no sense at all. "No future reign possible" is a lie: Booker T could be champion in future, and so Kurt Angle. Who knows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.145.2.14 (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Hardy's color behind his name

Why does Jeff Hardy's name go under the alternate title category? He won IC Title, Euro, Hardcore, World Tag Team, and WWE Title, none of those are Alternate Titles, and he won it with the WWE Championship, which is clearly not an alternate, so why is he under the Alternate color? If he belongs under the alternate category please explain to me why he should be there. Also, the description for that classification makes no sense, "Won the Grand Slam with an alternate title but has won all the titles under the original definition." Won with and alternate title but all titles won under original definition, isn't that rather redundant? --71.93.81.135 (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hardcore Championship is an alternate title. — Moe ε 00:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If Jeff Hardy has an alternate definition, then so do JBL, Angle, and Jericho, as the all held the Hardcore Title. VWG (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No. JBL, Angle and Jericho all won the grand slam by winning the European Championship first. Their hardcore championship reign had no relevance to their status, as they could have completed the grand slam without a Hardcore Championship reign. — Moe ε 02:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Hardy, Angle, Booker T, Eddie Guerrero, and Kane all won alternative titles to complete the Grand Slam. Hardy won the Hardcore title before the European title. Angle won the WWE Tag instead of the World Tag. Booker won the hardcore belt instead of the Euro. Eddie won the WWE Tag and not the World Tag. Kane won the hardcore title and no European. They should all have the alternative colors.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 02:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

They do have the alternative color. Green means alternative. Orange also means alternative with the exception that they also won all titles as the original definition. — Moe ε 15:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm just stating that, you said that Angle did not win an alternative title to complete the grand slam.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, if you mean my edit summary, I know. I made that mistake and made another edit correcting myself. — Moe ε 22:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

TNA Legends Title a Second Tier Championship?

If the The TNA Legends Championship is a Second-Tier Title should it then not be an alternative to the X-Division Championship for the Triple Crown Championship? A grandslam winner must win a World, Tag, Second-Tier and a Third-Tier title to be a grandslam winner. Should the Legend's title then not be a Third-Tier Championship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.197.126 (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference between a second and third tier championship is if they are considered interchangeable for the Triple Crown and Grand Slam Championships. The WWE Intercontinental Championship is used for the second tier for the Triple Crown. Triple Crown Champions do not happen if they won the World, Tag Team and, one of the two, European or Hardcore Championships, that is why the European and Hardcore Championships are third tier. Likewise in TNA, the World, Tag and X-Division complete the Triple Crown requirements, and not the World, Tag Team and Legends Championship. If Triple Crown status is given to someone who won just the World, Tag Team and Legends titles, then the Legends title is second tier. But until that is clarified or given, the Legends Championship is third tier because it is only used as a Grand Slam qualification. — Moe ε 06:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Legends Championship is not considering a third-teir by TNA. It is more so a second-teir as TNA are billing it as the secondary belt to the heavyweight. It is above the X Title to them. Seeing as there is a problem, both the X and the Legends are second-teir.--WillC 15:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, by all means, the Legends title should probably be above the X-Division title, but there has not been a Triple Crown Champion crowned where they won the Legends title as a replacement to the X-Division title (much like the United States Championship probably should be equivalent to the Intercontinental title). It's just that, it would be original research to say the Legends and X-Division titles are interchangeable, at this time. — Moe ε 13:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Edge

edge was the first person to win all the championships and he is a grand slam champions but his name is not here WHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.192.131 (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

He never won the European or Hardcore titles, so he has no reign in the third tier. His co-HC champion reign with Foley is unofficial, and thus doesn't count. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem here. His reign was acknowledged by WWE, which would make it official. He was announced as the Hardcore champion as well. So really we could say he is a Grand Slam Champion.--WillC 16:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Was it? In case, it should be added in with a source. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this that Foley/Edge co-reign was not official. The ONS 06 results page didn't even acknowledge them as champions. [2] All seems to indicate that the temporary revival of the title was unsanctioned. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

ECW Championship

being a world championship certain superstars ,only Christian comes to mind, should be considered Grand Slam Champions if not only having another second tier title added to to their resume' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshman5000 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WWE have not released any info with it being apart of it. Just wanting it to be doesn't make it apart of it.--WillC 21:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What about Rey Mysterio?

It was once mentioned on Smackdown that Rey had won the Brand Grand Slam (at the time) with his wins of the World Heavyweight Championship, the United States Championship, the WWE Tag Team Championships, and the WWE Cruiserweight Championship. Should he get some sort of special mention on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.81.227 (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source then yes. But no reliable source mentioning this, then no.--WillC 02:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

REy mysterio never won the US Championship 24.168.27.158 (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

He did win the IC though, so he's in. But I see the point of OP, this might be used to validate the US title. The only thing is, "grand slam" and "brand grand slam" may be different. Brand would be like a new incarnration whereas the old grand slam refers to retired titles. DB (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hardcore title as a part of Grand Slam

As far as I know, the Hardcore title hasn't been mentioned on air or on WWE.com in years as being part of the grand slam. Kane's also never called a grand slam champion on air. It seems ridiculous to me to include the Hardcore title in the definition because of an archived WWE.com article from 8 years ago.

Byuusetsu (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a ref from when Kane won the HC title which calls him a Grand Slam champion. "As far as I know" is not a reason to not read the refs on this page, nor is it a reason to dismiss them. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I did read the ref, hence the "archived WWE.com article from 8 years ago" mention. Sounds like I'm not the one who has a problem with reading. Byuusetsu (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So have you read all the discussions about this on this page, and do you understand that a consensus has been reached and that the Hardcore title is part of the GS? And the article is from WWF.com, not WWE.com. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Cruiserweight Title

Does this title count in the Grand Slam? The only person I can think of it applying to is Rey Mysterio 24.168.27.158 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not according to WWE. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Bad news for Hornswoggle. DB (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

how do we know?

i keep seeing that wwe hasnt stated that ecw and us championships don't count towards grand slam. however, they havn't stated anywhere that they don't count either, i know it sounds stupid but does anyone have a source stating that these championships don't count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.69.29 (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, there are no reliable sources to indicate that the United States Championship or the ECW Championship is or isn't a part of the Grand Slam Championship. — Moe ε 16:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Eric Young

Since he won the TNA Legends Championship, doesn't that mean he should be under the list of potential TNA Grand Slam Champions? He already won the NWA Tag Team Championship with Bobby Roode, the TNA Tag Team Champioship with Kaz, and the X Division Championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.239.173 (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Miz = Grand Slam Champion?

On the 12-13-10 edition of Raw, Miz cut a promo about how he should the Slammy winner for Superstar of the Year (after stealing the Slammy from the "demon girl" that gave him the evil look when he won the title).

He went over his accomplishments over the year (WWE, U.S., and Tag Titles, and Money in the Bank) and stated that he was a Grand Slam winner.

I'm sure that it's on WWE.com or You Tube or Hulu or something so people can look it up and see it for themselves.

The writers wrote the line for him to say, which means that it was WWE approved.

My question is--

Does that mean that the U.S Title can finally be included in the Grand Slam (as a aubstitute for the I-C Title, which by default makes MITB the replacement for the Euro and Hardcore belts)?

Yes?, No?, Maybe so?

Vjmlhds 04:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed it too. However, just like when JBL announced he was a Grand Slam Champion having won the United States Championship, he wasn't recognized as even a Triple Crown Champion never having won the Intercontinental Championship up to that point (he did eventually win the Triple Crown and Grand Slam with his Intercontinental Championship reign and was recognized by WWE having done so). Basically, I wouldn't quote any on-screen character. Yes, it was approved by WWE script writers, but then again, they make the heel wrestlers scripted to lie on a weekly basis. Unless WWE.com defines a Grand Slam Championship as the United States Championship and Money in the Bank included in that, then we can't really source it. And not only that, but there is no definition for what Money in the Bank and the United States Championship would be listed under. I'm sure we could always assume the United States Championship was the secondary accomplishment, but Wikipedia is based on reliably sourced information. — Moe ε 18:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, WWE has made it clear that they view the I-C and U.S. Titles as complements to each other (one's always on Raw, the other on SD, and the champs always face each other at Bragging Rights).

Also this makes twice in about 4 years that WWE has been dropping hints that the U.S. Title makes up some form of Grand Slam.

Remember HBK (as a heel) coined himself as the 1st Slam winner, and they ran with it.

I'm not gonna cause a broo-haha and start making all kinds of changes or anything--All I'm saying is that this is twice on WWE TV that a guy has claimed Slam status using a U.S. Title.

Where there's smoke...

Vjmlhds 19:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Tires cause smoke but they don't necessarily mean they cause a fire :p Yes, they are more than likely complements of each other (the Intercontinental and United States championships), but without a source outside the off-color, in-character comments of one of the wrestlers on Raw and SmackDown saying they are, then we can't really source that. According to this graphic by WWE:

"to qualify as a Triple Crown Champion, a WWE Superstar must win either the WWE Championship or World Heavyweight Championship, the Intercontinental Championship and either the World or WWE Tag Team Championship."

The only thing that has changed since they said that in 2009, is that the World Tag Team Championships have merged into the WWE Team Team Championships and the only difference between a Triple Crown and a Grand Slam, is a fourth title. The reference is as current as 2009, and means that currently, the United States Championship and Intercontinental Championship are not interchangeable for the Triple Crown or Grand Slam. It also means that what JBL said was false, since his United States Championship reign was earlier than 2009 and his accomplishment of a Triple Crown according to the source was finished with an Intercontinental Championship reign. Now since Miz has claimed his stake as a Grand Slam Champion, there hasn't been a newer source. As soon as one is given, then we can confirm or deny it. — Moe ε 23:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to make a point regarding the person who said that the MITB is a sound replacement for the Euro/Hardcore belts. I would have to disagree as it isn't a title, and although you are made winner, you're not crowned the champion of it, thus it cannot be a championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.56.174 (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not going to include them in the official list, I put in a small note in the article about JBL and Miz's claims to a Slam, with the disclaimer that they're unrecognized by WWE, just so no one tries to include them in the future (that is until we get official confirmation).

In other words, letting people know that while the claims are on record, the official recognition is not.

Vjmlhds 19:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Good call.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually not a bad idea. — Moe ε 18:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

On the 1000th episode of Raw I believe Michael Cole said that the Miz is now a grand slam champion after winning the intercontinental championship. I'm not exactly sure thats what was said but if it was, I'm sure it brings more integrity then the superstar itself saying it. And if it was true, it seems that the United States title is considered a secondary championship to replace hardcore/euro. Of course, thats speculation. 67.197.104.223 (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The unofficial claim

Just as an intellectual exercise, if The Miz's claim as a GSC holds, it would also put The Big Show, Edge, and CM Punk as GSCs as well, IIRC. It would also promote John Cena to TC status, and the only potential additions to the TC/GSC without winning MITB (ie. "Attitude Era" TC/GSC) are Christian and Regal. Are there others? kelvSYC (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but unless WWE confirms the United States title as part of the GS or TC, this is pretty redundant.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Other Grand Slams

If anybody in ROH, ECW or WCW held the Grand Slam, should they be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iml908 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No source they exist.--WillC 05:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

grand slam eligibility

its says they are only four current stars in the wwe that can become grand slam but both mark henry and r-truth have won the hardcore championship (truth won it under a different name in his first run with the wwe) so we should add them to it i dont know how every one else wants to add it so im not going to but some needs to add this --Black60dragon (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

While it is true that both are eligible, they still need to win either the WWE or World title, the IC title and a Tag Title, in other words they've won only 1/4 of what requires to be a Grand Slam winner. I believe it would be to much to list at the moment. Perhaps I should clarify within the article that those names listed are only 1 title away from being a Grand Slam champion. Goldust and Regal are a WWE or World title away from being Grand Slam winners, and The Undertaker and Big Show are one Intercontinental title win away from the Grand Slam as well.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Angle Mention as Grand Slam Winner in 2003 Royal Rumble

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pupfYjOm3hA

At 14:10, Michael Cole says Angle is part of the "Grand Slam Club," but defines it as holding all singles championships (WWE, IC, European, & Hardcore).

Its irrelevant. Angle had already won the WWE Tag Team title in 2002.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

AJ Styles listed twice?

As good as he is, any further matches where he wins qualifying belts are not going to affect the fact he already won the Grand Slam, so why does he have 2 entries? 91.125.80.109 (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

...As with their definition of the TNA Triple Crown, wrestlers can be multiple-time Grand Slam champions each time they complete a new circuit... TNA is stupid like that...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 11:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That is kinda stupid... does that mean that now any time he wins any qualifying belt, he is also a new Grand Slam winner as well? MrZoolook (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No. As with the TNA Triple Crown, a wrestler would have to win all qualifying titles again to be a new Grand Slam winner.... in other words, completing a new circuit...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 11:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont know the dates but I've followed TNA enough, and went to his wiki page, to know that he has won ALL of TNA's titles but the dates are not listed in his section on the grandslam.

Yes he has besides a few minor titles like the Beer Drinking and the Women's plus the others TNA has used over the years. He has won the WHC 4 times (NWA 3, TNA 1), the X Division 6, the Tag 5 (NWA 4, TNA 1) and the TV twice (one Legends, One Global/TV). He needs to win the TV once again to complete it again.--WillC 14:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

WCW Grand Slam

Was it possible to win a grand slam in WCW if yes which belts consist and who has won (WorldSeriesOfPoker500 (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

Their TC is World, Tag, and US so the GS would add the WCW TV Title to the table and all but two TC winners have also held that title. I think all but goldberg and bret hart have won that title so all the others would be grand slam as well

heres a table

Grand Slam Champion	Primary Championship	Tag Team Championships	Secondary Championships	Tertiary Championships
	WCW World Heavyweight Championship	WCW World Tag Team Championship	WCW United States Championship	WCW World Television Championship
Ric Flair	January 11, 1991	December 26, 1976 (with Greg Valentine)	July 29, 1977	February 8, 1975
Sting	February 29, 1992	January 22, 1996 (with Lex Luger)	August 25, 1991	March 31, 1989
Lex Luger	July 14, 1991	January 22, 1996 (with Sting)	January 1, 1991	February 17, 1996
Diamond Dallas Page	April 11, 1999	May 31, 1999 (with Bam Bam Bigelow)	December 28, 1997	September 17, 1995
Chris Benoit	January 16, 2000	March 14, 1999 (with Dean Malenko)	August 9, 1999	April 30, 1998
Scott Steiner	November 26, 2000	March 9, 1991 (with Rick Steiner)	April 11, 1999	September 29, 1992
Booker T	December 29, 1997	December 8, 1994 (with Stevie Ray)	March 18, 2001	December 29, 1997

Thanks i was wondering because i think it should be on the Grand Slam champions list with WWE and TNA Grand slams (WorldSeriesOfPoker500 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC))

GS & TC winners between TNA & the NWA

I was wondering if any potential triple crown winners not currently in TNA but have won either the x-divion & the TNA &/or NWA WH & tag titles would count. Such as Amazing Red if he were to ever win the NWA World title. Or would it, I assume, have to in TNA.

COBRAMORPH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.221.54 (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Its the TNA Grand Slam, has to be in TNA.--WillC 08:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

ECW and US titles

Is there any indication that either of these would be worth at least a tertiary slot? I always ranked the ECW title as higher than intercontinental, so you think it'd be at least a secondary. If the US title isn't a match for IC title at secondary you'd think it'd at least be tertiary like the Euro/Hardcore ones. It's all very strange. Y12J (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

WWE says its not connected in anyway to the Grand Slam or the Triple Crown. Its like the several titles that came before that were never connected.--WillC 07:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

These will never be added stop asking the US title is a secondary in the WCW TC | and the ECW in the world title in the ECW TC and it was barely here in the wwe anyways and was considered ecw's revival so it was an ecw title and like i said before the US came from wcw and since it was their secondary title in wont be added into the WWE TC or GS

What about the WCW championship or the WWWF US Tag titles????? Get over it the WCW title wont be in it was the same as the ECW title . There are part of the WCW and ECW TC so they wont be in there are not WWE titles. The US title is in the WCW TC so its not in the WWE and the US title is not as important as the IC title. The IC title is the 2nd most prestigious title in the WWE behind on the WWE title so they will never be in just like the cruiserweight title wont be in or the WCW tag title as both of these were at one time defended on WWE raw or smackdown BlackDragon 15:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

WCW Grand Slam Official

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OaiAoI6K2Q at 1:58 & 2:40 the announcers mention the grand slam championship and so does Lance while talking in the ring so their is an Official WCW Grand Slam Championship

"Gold" Standards

I added gold to the Grand Slam charts to indicate wrestlers who "ran the table" and won every Grand Slam eligible title in WWE and TNA. Vjmlhds 19:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Unofficial GC

I think we should state somewhere in the WWE section that edge is an unofficial GS Champion. As he held all titles required for it but his hardcore reign is not recognized as an official reign but as an unsanctioned reign. But winning an unsanctioned title does count as a reign but just not as an official reign. So i think it should be stated in the article somewhere but not in the actual table chart for it. BlackDragon 15:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

An unofficial reign counts as a reign on Wikipedia because a notable source counts it as a reign. Do you have a reliable source calling Edge an unofficial Grand Slam champ? It's not enough to find a source for his unofficial Hardcore championship and conclude it makes him a Grand Slam champ. That's synthesis. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I never said the unofficial GS is the exact name but i think it could be mentioned that edge has won the necessary titles to be called a GSC but his hardcore reign is unsanctioned so its not an official GS. but he did as some point hold all the titles required making him an "unofficial" or "unsantioned" GS winner BlackDragon 02:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

FCW

Please, keep the FCW Grand Slam. I asked in the wikiproject and Starship.Pain tell me that I can add it. Also, FCW is a notable Indy promotion because it was the WWE Farm Territory. Also, we have a lot of Articles about indy wrestlers, indy promotions, indy championship and indy tournament. Why can't we have a FCW Grand Slam if it's notable and we have a soucre? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No reason. Like you say, FCW is high-profile and there's a good source. I totally approve, and there's no guideline (that I'm aware of) that says it shouldn't be included. If a particular reader doesn't find it useful or interesting, they don't have to read it. But if another reader does, it's available. No harm done. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

FCW is a retired development territory so there will never be another one. An the only reason its a grand slam is because its the only 3 titles in fcw. And like i said OVW is an equal and we dont add them. The Grand Slam is for national promotion like WCW, WWE, TNA. ROH is a notable indie so is New Japan because there are indie FCW is a training ground so its not notable and besides on rollins page it states in the championship section that he was the first champion and there are only 3 titles so they know which ones he won and since they wont ever be another i see no point whatsoever of adding it since its on the only 2's page BlackDragon 02:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If reliable sources say ROH, OVW or New Japan have Grand Slam Champions, they should be added. How you can consider New Japan an indy is beyond me. If you can find something backing your opinion that only national promotions should count here, present it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

i didnt say New Japan is indie but its not a program aired world wide like the wwe. its the biggest promotion in japan but it just stays there in japan. And there was a source that ovw had a TC but it was removed do to the fact that ovw is not notable. So i say wait until afterwards to add it back. but the fact that there is only 2 and will ever only be 2 isnt really worth taking up the page for. There will continue to be WWE and TNA grand slams but not another FCW. And its on there page stating that they become a "Grand Slam" in FCW so its not necessary here BlackDragon 02:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"ROH is a notable indie so is New Japan because there are indie". It's not exactly English, but the gist of it is there. A discussion about a different promotion in a different article makes no difference here. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Two entries does not "take up the page". Like you say, it won't even grow. It's mentioned on every Grand Slam wrestler's page they're a Grand Slam Champion. But if someone wants to know who the FCW Grand Slam Champions were, they can't just look up their articles (since they don't know whose article to check), so it's not unnecessary. Like I said in the edit summary, be aware that you are close to violating WP:3RR. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

So are you and keep in mind that alot of people dont know about fcw and I think since there is only two and will only ever be two "grand slams" in FCW to add it to the FCW/NXT page. SO that way if anyone wants to know of the FCW "Grand Slam" then they can check there. its not really necessary here. So ill add it to the FCW page and that way its here if anyone is curious but not on the GSC page BlackDragon 18:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Here NXT_Wrestling#FCW_Grand_Slam_Champions because fcw is not notable or very big it doesnt belong here but since the link is official i have added it to the NXT page so if anyone wants to know it is there for them to see when Seth or Richie won the title this should be the final revision so plz dont add it back here BlackDragon 18:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the more relevant article to list this. People looking for info on any GSC would naturally check an article called Grand Slam Championship. Do you have any argument other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:Not notable? If not, the matter is settled. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

First, the article talks about the Grand Slam Championshipn in professional wrestling, no the GSC in national wrestling promotion. It talks about the GSC in national promotions and notable independen circuit, and FCW is a notable indy promotion because it is the WWE Farm territory. Second, FCW GSC is dead. Yes, also the WCW and ECW Triple Crown, must we delete them? No. Third, we need realible soucres. We can't say that El Geerico is a PWG GSC (he won the World, Tag Team, DDT and BOLA) because PWG never says that he is a GSC. WWE calls Rollins the first FCW Grand Slam and give us a new definition (like TNA Multi-time triple crwon or ROH Triple Crown): In FCW, you can be a Grand Slam Champion if you won 3 titles only. Don't remove it.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WCW or NWA titles?

If you look at Solie.org or Wrestling-titles.com you'll find the titles history of most of titles that been around throught the years. In January 1991, WCW officially split from the NWA and began to recognize its own WCW Championship titles (World Hvy champ Flair, World Tag champs Doom, World TV Anderson, US Hvy Luger & US Tag the Steiners). All NWA Titles were exclusively referred to as WCW Titles from 91/01. NWA titles were considered vacant while WCW awarded the former NWA champs with the WCW titles since they were in control of the . Flair never held the WCW version of the World Tag or the NWA World TV/WCW World TV title. Flair held the NWA TV(formally the NWA Mid-Atlantic Television Title) nor did Sting held the WCW World TV title. If you are to count the NWA titles history then you have to add Dusty Rhodes (NWA World, NWA World Tag, NWA US & NWA TV/NWA World TV), Ricky Steamboat (NWA World, NWA & WCW World Tag, NWA & WCW US & NWA TV/WCW World TV) & Barry Windham (NWA World, NWA & WCW World Tag, NWA US & WCW World TV). That if you're counting Flair's NWA World Tag & NWA TV along with Sting's NWA World TV. For the just NWA titles triple Crown (World, World Tag & US) you would have Flair, Rhodes, Steamboat & Windham. NWA Grand Slam would be Flair, Rhodes & Steamboat. But if you are to add the NWA & WCW together Shane Douglas would a Triple Crown NWA World, NWA & WCW World Tag & WCW US. One small thought about the International World Title, since there was 2 World Hvy champs in WCW for a while, Rick Rude would be a Triple Crown (WCW International World, NWA World Tag & WCW US). Add Luger would be the only 2 time Grand Slam champ ( WCW US 01/91 & 08/10/98, World Hvy 07/14/91 & 08/04/97, World Tag w/Sting 01/22/96 w/The Giant 02/23/97 & WCW World TV 02/17/96 & 03/06/96) going by WCW, Solie.org & Wrestling-Titles.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.8.153 (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Mid-Atlantic TV Title is the WCW TV Title. And the Mid-Atlantic version of the NWA World Tag Team Title is the WCW World Tag Team Title. They were just renamed in 1991. Not vacated and replaced. But the WCW World Heavyweight Title is not the NWA World Heavyweight Title. That was a replacement, since NWA needed their world title. But they had no use for Mid-Atlantic/JCP/WCW's regional titles, because that region no longer existed after 1993. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Title now a part of the Slam (Maybe).

Oh boy...

I think I found something that may signify that the U.S. title can finally go into the Grand Slam (in the #3 slot equating to the European and Hardcore titles)

Here it is: Miz Slam

Now you have to click on the MORE tab on Miz's bio to see the reference.

The part in question refers to Miz winning the I-C title...“After capturing that prestigious prize and becoming a Grand Slam Champion...”

Before it goes in, I just wanna make sure we get some consensus, because if approved then some others will be Slam eligible.

Edge, Dolph Ziggler, and Chris Benoit would also be considered Slam winners, as they have the WWE/World-IC-US-Tag combo.

Ric Flair and Steve Austin could count as well. since WWE acknowledges their U.S. title reigns, and makes no seperation between WCW and WWE reigns.

Slam winners like Big Show, Kurt Angle, JBL, Eddie Guerrero, and Booker T, would be affected, since they can add the U.S. title to their Slam (and depending on when they won it, the U.S. title may have put them over the top).

And a boat load of guys can go in the "one away" club as well.

So I'll leave it up to consensus to see if it's a thumbs up or thumbs down.

I'll start.

I say thumbs up since this bio looks like something WWE either wrote for ION or at minimum collaborated with them to write. Vjmlhds 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a valid source, to say The Miz is a Grand Slam Champion. But to take the next step and say this means the US Title counts (and that other US Champions are Grand Slam Champions, or closer) may violate WP:SYNTHESIS. A source that explicitly says the US title counts would be preferable, and counting the US title for The Miz only doesn't seem right. It's an iffy situation, and so I don't support or oppose it. Just commenting. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that since the source details the combination of titles Miz won (WWE, I-C, U.S., Tag Team), and credits him as a Grand Slam winner, the natural assumption is that if it's good enough for Miz, then it's good enough for others who have the exact same combo, or any other of the accepted titles. In other words, how can there be a question if Edge is a Slam winner when he won the exact same titles as Miz did? There's a source giving Kane credit for a Slam by using the Hardcore title instead of the European title. Thus other wrestlers who have done the same thing also get credit for a Slam (i.e. Big Show and Booker T). The major sticking point all this time was that we needed a WWE approved source saying that the U.S. title could qualify for the Slam before we could include it, and if what we have here isn't it, I don't know what is. Vjmlhds 23:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not technically proper in my eyes ("natural assumption" smells of synthesis), but I won't argue it, per War (Edwin Starr song). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

U.S. title now part of the Slam

OK, let me explain what I did here, just so everything is clear...

FINALLY after all this time, there is a legitimate, WWE approved source stating that the U.S. Championship can count towards the Grand Slam -- Miz a Slam winner.

It should be apparent that WWE either wrote the bio or at minimum collaborated with ION Television in producing it.

Because of this, four other wrestlers also now qualify for a Slam by virtue of having a WWE/World Heavyweight, I-C, U.S., and Tag Team Championship combination (Chris Benoit, Edge, Bret Hart, and Dolph Ziggler).

As of now only WWE era U.S. Titles should be included, because as of now I haven't found any sources saying whether NWA/WCW era titles can count towards a Slam. It's not necessarily that they don't, but since there's uncertainty, and so as not to muck up the works, erring on the side of caution is the best bet at this point.

But the important thing is that now there is a WWE backed source saying the U.S. Title is part of the Slam (at the tertiary level, since it clearly pointed out that Miz only got the Slam after winning the I-C title).

Thank you.

Vjmlhds 21:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is GARBAGE! You think that an insignificant article on a website that isn't even officially WWE's own can change history? Have you tried to look at WWE.COM to see if they mention The Miz as a grandslam champion?

http://www.wwe.com/superstars/themiz

It only says Triple Crown champion there, and don't you think that The Miz would have used the bigger accomplishment (Grand slam champion status) to brag about on TV? Yes of course heel Miz would have... yet he and the commentators called him a TRIPLE CROWN champion. Why wasn't it mentioned on WWE.COM (WWE's official site)? I'm sure that the ION Television article must have gotten confused over terms between Triple Crown and Grand Slam, and since it's such a minor thing anyway I doubt ION or WWE bothered to try and fix it. I mean look at the ION Television article, it doesn't reference Triple Crown status but just the Grand Slam status, while the WWE official article on Miz says he's a Triple Crown champion (what we KNOW Miz would become with WWE approved sources). Clearly he became one thing, and the only thing he'd be considered as after winning the IC title that we know is 100% true is Triple Crown champion. If he really did become two things (Triple Crown and Grand Slam through that one title win) both sites would mention both accomplishments then it would be safe to say that the United States title is a third tier title. Both sites show that he only became one thing, and the one thing we know for a fact that he'd become with his past titles plus an IC title is a Triple Crown which is what the WWE's official website, TV shows, and Miz himself have confirmed.

How did you seriously think that one line in a non-official WWE article about one random superstar that happens to randomly state he's a grandslam champion make it 100% true that the United States title is third tier? On that same ION Television website it says nothing about GrandSlam status for Dolph Ziggler, I guess you didn't read his article. With your logic, he should be grand slam champion there too, but he's not mentioned as one there. Also the only other person that is actually grand slam champion on that site (without considering the US title), Big Show, has no mention of grand slam status either. So why did they mention it for Miz? Simple, back then he was bragging about becoming Triple Crown champion. That was his thing back then, and ION clearly was mistaken on the name of it. They got Grand Slam confused with Triple Crown. Seriously there needs to be way more evidence to support the US title being a third tier title than that one line in an article that isn't on WWE.COM.

Since when did Wikipedia jump the gun and just change things so drastically off of one article that clearly was a mistake. Please change everything back from what you've done, you've made a huge mess out of several articles.186.45.76.100 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we may be jumping the gun here. WWE probably wrote, or at least okay'd the bio used on ion.com. But we can't know for sure. And until we know for sure, we shouldn't be speculating. I think we have to wait until we get a WWE.com source before we go all the way in confirming the US title is part of the grand slam. (User:LM2000 (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC))

One thing that must be considered is that all of the wrestler's names and images are copyrighted by WWE, therefore ION couldn't use them with WWE's permission. And it's obvious WWE and ION are in business together as WWE is producing a show for ION to air (and even though it really shouldn't have to come to this, here's a reference to show WWE and ION are indeed working together -- Official WWE/ION Corpoate announcement. ION can't do anything regarding WWE without WWE explicitly giving their A-OK. And since WWE is obviously vested in this thing, they are going provide their input. Long story short...WWE and ION are in business together, and anything regarding this show has WWE's hands all over it. Nothing about this show can come to pass without WWE's blessing due to all the legalities involved. So at minimum WWE gave a thumbs up to Miz's bio if not outright providing it themselves...ION legally couldn't do it any other way. Vjmlhds 23:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Do PWTorch, Slam Wrestling, and (insert commercial website, newspaper or book title here) need to get WWE's explicit permission before they use a name or image? No, a copyright disclaimer suffices. I'm not saying a WWE employee didn't write this or OK it. It's possible, but we don't know that. However, there's no rule saying a Wiki source must be a primary one. It's actually almost the other way around. So it's somewhat of a moot point, who wrote what. The synthesis issue is the only thing I have a (minor) problem with. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Also consider WP:REDFLAG. Even if we confirm this is straight from the wrestling horse's mouth, this seems like it would be each of the four things that guideline lists, and so would need multiple, high-quality sources. This WWE.com article is pretty clear that Miz won the Triple Crown with the IC belt, and says this "highlights his resume". It also explicitly defines what a Triple Crown Champion is. So there's Point 3 on REDFLAG. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OK this article is a mess. From lots of typos to the fact that the US title is still considered third tier. That one ION article is not enough, it doesn't even clearly state what this argument is about, the fact that the US Championship is third tier. It could just be not considered at all for it like the Cruiserweight Title. I mean, after all, the original reason the United States title didn't count towards the grand slam was because it wasn't originally a WWE title and that was considering it as a second tier.

Where in that ION article says that the US Championship is third tier? Yes it says Miz is a grandslam champion, but does it say the status of the title? No. That's a ton of assumption there. Like I said before, the WWE.COM article refers to him as Triple Crown while this article, presumably written by an ION employee that got mixed up between the terms grand slam and triple crown. Why don't the other articles call Big Show or Dolph Ziggler grand slam champions? You'd need way more evidence before jumping the gun and changing everyone's information to make people into Grand Slam champions because of one article from ION TV that hasn't worked with WWE for more than a few months. This is just bad work on Wikipedia's part to allow this guy to wreck such havoc on articles. 186.45.76.100 (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's wreaking havoc. He's just doing the "bold" part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Yes, "bold" is a stupid verb, but it's a decent system. If we discuss and consensus is for reverting, it's an easy fix. But everyone's entitled to present their ideas. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Much like you've said before InedibleHulk, unlike Miz's WWE profile which describes him as a Triple Crown Champion and describes each belt that makes up the Triple Crown, Ion says he is a Grand Slam Champ but doesn't explicitly say the US title is part of it. Obviously Miz has only won four singles championships, The US belt being for fourth, so we have to fill in the obvious blanks here. I'm not saying we shouldn't do this, I'm sure there are instances where this has been done before. But one thing I know for sure is that the US is not s third tier belt. Obviously when it was brought back in 2003 during the brand split it was intended to be used as an equal to the IC belt. Here is an article from last week that describes the relationship between the IC and US belts. "Where the Intercontinental Title (to which the U.S. Title is often compared) has traditionally signified the Superstar who is next in line for World Title–level competition, the U.S. Championship instead became the mark of a fast-rising star." Clearly here the article compares the belts and even implies the US belt has been used to elevate more guys in recent years than the IC belt (which is true in many cases; Miz, Lashley, Cena, Daniel Bryan, etc.). Although we assume the US belt is a substitute for either of the original lower tiered belts we should know that unlike them it is not a lower tiered belt.

And if we accept the US title, do we accept the WCW lineage with it? The WWE title history page includes most of it's NWA and WCW history. However the long-standing theory as to why the US title wasn't included in the Grand Slam earlier was because of its NWA origins. We could only include its history in WWE. Kurt Angle and Edge won it while it was in WWE but it had its WCW name and the Invasion storyline considered it a WCW belt. Regardless, their reigns are listed on this page (and in the case of Edge, he needs that belt to get the Grand Slam). Steve Austin and Ric Flair won the belt in WCW and should arguably be included here as well if we are to include Edge and Kurt on the list. The belt was not WWEified until 2003.User:LM2000 (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we're getting too wound up on minutiae about tiers here...The ION article credited Miz with a Slam due to him winning the WWE-IC-US-Tag Team combo. In all Slam combinations there have been 3 constants -- the WWE/World Heavyweight Championship, the Intercontinental title, and a set of tag straps (which coincidentally makes up the Triple Crown). At it's essence the Slam is a Triple Crown + 1, and there are sources that indicate that the European, Hardcore, and U.S. titles have all been considered accaptable as the "+1". Bottom line, you can't have a Grand Slam without the Triple Crown (and there are no sources out there saying otherwise). As far as the line of demarcation goes, I'm hesitant to add NWA/WCW era U.S. titles to the Slam without a source (and I don't mean a "guy doing a blog in his basement" type source -- and before anybody says anything, ION is a national television network doing direct business with WWE. I'm talking about somebody on his own with no ties with WWE just throwing stuff out there) backing me up. Not saying that they shouldn't count, but I don't want to open up cans of worms unecessarily, so the best bet is to play it safe. And finally, once WWE bought WCW, all their assets became WWE property (and in the source LM2000 referenced, WWE stated that very fact). So in regards to Edge and Angle, even though the belt technically still had WCW's name on it, the title was owned and promoted by WWE at the time they won it, so there should be no problem there. Vjmlhds 14:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Point by Point

I've been told by some other editors that I sometimes ramble on talk pages and that it's hard to decipher my point.

So what I'll do here is list point by point why I did what I did.

1. In the bio for the Miz on ION's website, it credited him as a Grand Slam Champion, and listed all the titles he won (WWE, I-C, U.S., and Tag Team)

2. This is a sufficient source, as ION is working directly as a partner with WWE regarding the Main Event TV show, and thus anything involving the production and promotion of the show has both WWE and ION blessings. If this had been from a "Guy doing a blog in his basement" site, I would not have counted it, as it would have been just somebody's random opinion. ION though is a national TV network working in direct partnership with WWE, so that gives it more teeth.

3. In all sources (at least that I've found) regarding the WWE Grand Slam, the 3 main cogs in all versions of the Slam are the WWE/World Heavyweight Titles, the Intercontitenal Cahmpionship, and the WWE/World Tag Team Titles, which just happens to be the Triple Crown. The European, Hardcore, and U.S. titles all have sources showing that them in addition to the Triple Crown makes a Grand Slam. Long story short, the Slam is a Triple Crown +1, and there's no Slam without the TC.

4. WWE has indicated in their own website article that they took control of the U.S. title in 2001, thus any title changes occuring after March 26, 2001 (when the sale became officially announced on the big Raw/Nitro simulcast) happened on WWE's watch thus it counts toward the Slam.

5. I simply don't know if NWA/WCW title reigns can count or not, so if I don't know, and I don't have a proper source, I'm gonna err on the side of caution and not include it.

This is as clear as I can be in explaining myself.

Vjmlhds 18:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Pathetic. Let me try and simplify it for you in point form since you didn't seem to even read my posts:

1) The ION website refers to The Miz (only) as a Grandslam Champion, yet Dolph Ziggler would be considered one under your ludicrous theory and Big Show is actually one. Why? And why doesn't WWE's website refer to him as a Grand Slam champion? Might I note that The Miz was undergoing a gimmick at the time "Main Event" started was of "Triple Crown" champion. This brings me to point 2.

2) ION obviously wrote that article. WWE may have approved them to write the article, but it can easily be a mistake. There is NO other article that you can reference that says that The Miz is a Grand Slam champion that doesn't reference this same ION article. Show me something else that tells me about the US Championship being third tier, something you claimed you had numerous sources that confirmed this. This article doesn't confirm anything about the status of the US Championship.

3) You want to "fill in the blanks" using this article... then we can "fill in the blanks" like this. Maybe the Grand Slam itself has changed now where it allows two second tier titles, a world title, and a tag title. If you open the door to assumptions about the US title, it can open doors like this. It can justify any crazy argument because the ION article doesn't define what a Grand Slam champion is, just says that The Miz is one. Apparently other grand slam champions, like Big Show, don't matter to ION just The Miz. The article isn't clear at all. If it were so clear that The Miz was a grand slam champion, why don't other articles like WWE.COM's own say this?

The other two points don't even matter since it's clear that the US Championship is not really part of the Slam. Why not message the ION Network and ask them if that Miz article is in error? At the end of the day, that one article doesn't justify anything, especially not the mess that you've created on a lot of wrestlers' web pages. Please fix the mess that you've created, you've done way too much damage and awarding people credentials they never earned. 186.45.76.100 (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You want to disagree with me, fine. But you need to change your tone. Calling people pathetic and using an angry tone is the kind of thing that can get you blocked if you're not careful. As I said before we're getting too wrapped up in "tiers" and minutiae. I didn't "make a mess" out of anything. WWE and their business partner introduced a new configuration for the Grand Slam, and thus things were adjusted accordingly. It's really going out on a limb on anyone's part to just assume a mistake, especially when we're dealing with multi-million dollar companies. Vjmlhds 14:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's just as wrong to assume rich companies don't make mistakes. See Financial crisis of 2007–2008. It's also a stretch to say this was the introduction of a new configuration, which would reasonably include a direct statement. The only official WWE.com definition of a Grand Slam I can see is the one about Shawn Michaels, "He not only became WWE's first Grand Slam Champion (the first Superstar to hold the World Tag Team, Intercontinental, European and WWE Championships)...". Something along those lines of explicit detail would be much better for the US title. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Vjmlhds. ION is working with WWE, so it is a realible soucre. Its the only soucre where i can read that Miz is a Grand Slam, but I only read a soucre of WWF saying that Kane is a Grand Slam with the hardcore title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if it's a reliable primary source (which it reasonably could be), and even if it isn't synthesis to "fill in the blanks" for other former US champions (which it really is), exceptional claims require multiple, high-quality sources. Saying the US title counts toward a Grand Slam (which the ION article only implies) would meet all four criteria for an "exceptional claim". And please, VJM, stop creating new sections for the same topic. IP 186, please try to be civil. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

OK I'll try to be as civil as possible with that guy. Please fix everything back to how it was. There was no agreement on whether the ION Article is enough to warrant such a massive change in several wrestling articles. You're trying to justify one article that merely suggests that the United States Championship has been included into the Grand Slam picture. Not only that but you went ahead and changed things to suit your taste rather than get an agreement from people on this matter.

Like I said before, you completely ignored everything that I wrote just because you want The Miz and Ziggler listed as Grand Slam Champions and want to take the claim that you were the first one to edit in a big story. Look, can you please just be civil and clean up the mess made and then we can discuss this matter. The easy way to silence everyone that is against your claims is to bring three or four different articles that clearly indicate that the Grand Slam Championship can include a US Championship reign instead of Hardcore or European, a WWE source that lists Dolph Ziggler as a Grand Slam Champion (as this would justify the one on ION about The Miz), and an official WWE article (besides the ION one) that states The Miz is a Grand Slam Champion. Where are those articles? Instead you use only one poorly worded article to change several articles at your whim and fancy. Nice. 186.45.100.166 (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

186...you are the only one here really against what I did here. Everyone else I've talked to on this matter (both on this page or on their own talk pages) either back me up, or are at worst neutral/ambivelent. I really don't see what your problem is with this...the article laid out all the titles Miz won (first Tag Team, then U.S., then WWE, and finally I-C) and said upon winning the I-C he became a Slam winner. I'm not on some flight of fancy here. I found an article from a company directly working with WWE in producing/promoting a TV show, it's not like it's from some random guy in his basement on a blog just spouting off an opinion. It was only after finding the article that I made my edits. The article clearly detailed Miz's championships and that he became a Slam winner once he got a certain one. I didn't do anything different than when other editors in the past showed a reference indicating that alternate titles could be used in place of the originals. All they needed to show was one solid source, and it was good enough. I produced that one solid source. Vjmlhds 03:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I was neutral at first, when it was just about the synthesis. But since I've noticed WWE's claims about The Miz and the Triple Crown "highlighting his resume", I'm opposing your edits on all four points of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. If you can find at least one other source saying (directly) that the US Title counts, I'll probably go back to neutral. It might be best for everyone if a request for comment was opened to determine consensus. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

But The Miz has won only the IC, WWE, Tag Team, World Tag Team and US titles. If ION says that he is a Grand Slam, I don't know another combination of championships.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And this seems to be contradicted by WWE.com here. Notice they say absolutely nothing about a Grand Slam, only the Triple Crown. They say this Triple Crown "highlights his resume". If they recognized him as a Grand Slam champion, wouldn't we reasonably expect that would be the highlight? Because the ION article appears the only one on the Internet hinting at this Grand Slam theory, and it is at odds with the official primary source, it is an exceptional claim, and requires more sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

We need to initiate a dispute settlement. I understand that you're longing to use that ION article to justify changing several articles for your own entertainment, but the sources that were used to justify including the World Heavyweight Championship and Hardcore Championship came from WWE.COM not some other website affiliated with WWE. Can you even begin to explain why it says Triple Crown Champion on WWE.COM, yet the ONLY place that says he's a grand slam champion is ION? Not only that, but ION doesn't point out the other people featured on that page that should or are grand slam champions as one... why? Back when that page was made Miz was bragging about his resume being a Triple Crown Champion. Why would he brag about that instead of the higher accolade of being a grand slam champion like Shawn Michaels? ION made an error. There is NO other source that you can present that is official that says that The Miz is a grand slam champion. If you could do that, then I'd leave the changes but right now, things need to get changed back. I am asking for a dispute settlement so we can fix the mess this guy has made. 186.45.100.166 (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that you are in a mistake. I'm not Vjmlhds. I think that ION is a realible soucre because it's working with WWE. No more, no less.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Changing the articles for my own entertainment"?!? That semi-suggests vandalism, and I resent that. And don't just assume ION made an error. Perhaps they (meaning both WWE and ION) wanted to make Miz's accomplishments more glorified (since he's on Main Event every week either hosting or wrestling), so they bumped him up to Slam status...ever consider that? Regardless of why they did it, the point is that it's out there, and since it's directly connected to WWE, it can't be simply disregarded. Vjmlhds 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It can and should be disregarded. Does the article explicitly state the US Title is part of the Grand Slam? No. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Is this a surprising or apparently important claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources? A challenged claim that is supported purely by a primary or self-published source or one with an apparent conflict of interest? A statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended? A claim that is contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions? Yes to all. This is a fringe claim, and given the synthesis required, a weak one. As the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material, I'm going to revert your changes until you can meet that burden. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever...At the end of the day, it's not worth fighting over, and getting beat up about it. Vjmlhds 15:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Not beating you up, just this particular edit of yours. You do a lot more good than harm around here, and even your harm is done with good intentions. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, we can't forget that ION says that Miz is a Grand Slam. We don't know the titles combination, but he has the grand slam. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could mention that ION says this, but I don't see how we can count him along with the others (especially in the table, where there's no US Title column). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for finally instituting some order around here.186.45.72.78 (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It was just ten days. And by Wikipedia chaos standards, just a ripple. But thanks for your input. If you'd rather up the pace in disputes like this, maybe you'd like to create an account? Your arguments are reasonable, but a name carries more weight than an IP address (not a policy, but human nature). You would also be able to edit semi-locked articles. Not trying to pressure you, just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If you insist on putting over The Miz with this "Grand Slam" thing, you could just mention in his article that ION describes him as "Grand Slam Champion" however he doesn't fall under the established criteria. 186.45.72.78 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that easy. History section: On January 2013, ION described The Miz as a Grand Slam Champion, but the combination is unknown. The table:

Champion	Primary Championships		Tag Team Championships		Secondary Championships	Tertiary Championships
	WWE	World Heavyweight	World Tag Team	WWE Tag Team	Intercontinental	European	Hardcore
The Miz	November 22, 2010		December 13, 2008 (with John Morrison)	November 16, 2007 (with John Morrison)	July 23, 2012	N/A (Tertiary Title Unknown)	N/A (Tertiary Title Unknown)

What do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not as vehemently opposed to this, I'm somewhat on the fence. Removing the US title out of the equation is an improvement and a step towards resolving this. It does solve the problem of filling in the blanks from the Ion article. However, as discussed earlier we still are divided on whether or not the Ion source is reliable enough to begin with. We now need to come to a consensus on whether the Ion article being sufficient enough to confirm Miz as a grand slam winner without listing US title as a tertiary. --User:LM2000 (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I still consider it an exceptional claim, (seemingly) the only one on Earth and contradicted by WWE.com (both by their definitions of Grand Slam and assertion that the Triple Crown highlights Miz's resume). Without at least one more similar source, seems too fringe to include. It would also likely prompt "Miz is listed, so why can't x be?" types of edit warring/arguing. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

But we have a soucre talking about Miz as a Grand Slam. We don't know the combination (maybe the USA, maybe the MITB) but Miz is a Grand Slam. Also, we use only one soucre with the WHC Championship and the Hardcore Championship (because WWE has mentioned the Grand Slam few times)--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Hardcore title claim is different. It comes directly from the official site, explicitly says the Hardcore title counts in a Grand Slam, and isn't contradicted by other sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be another article from WWE.COM that agrees with his grand slam status. The ION article says Grand Slam, but not Triple Crown. The WWE.COM article says Triple Crown and not Grand Slam. We know for sure he's a Triple Crown champion. I think we just wait until another source confirms the US title as a tertiary title. 186.45.82.197 (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I take it this whole controversy could be benched as Miz's claims could be viewed as a prelude to the new way of measuring Grand Slam released this year which Miz is now a part of? Ranze (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Broken links

The references for the claims that the World Heavyweight Title and WWE Tag Team Title count lead to nowhere. Please update them, or the claims cannot be considered verifiable. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

GOLDUST

Shouldnt Goldust due to his return be in the nearly section hes only short of a primary has secondary (ic) Territary (hardcore) and tag QueenAlexandria (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying he's actually returned, and wasn't just a one-off Rumble entrant? He isn't listed on WWE.com's roster page. If we can verify that he's in WWE, we should certainly list him as a near-champion. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Edge's unsanctioned Hardcore Champ reign.

I think this should be counted with a little notice such as;

Champion	Primary Championships		Tag Team Championships		Secondary Championships	Tertiary Championships
	WWE	World Heavyweight	World Tag Team	WWE Tag Team	Intercontinental	European	Hardcore
Edge (Unofficial)	8.1.06	8.5.07	2.4.00 (w/ Christian)	5.11.02 (w/ Rey Mysterio)	24.7.99	N/A (Title retired)	22.5.06 (Unsanctioned)

Acceptable? OnurT 19:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Because it was unsanctioned and never recognized I don't think we should acknowledge it. User:LM2000 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This has been brought up above ("Unofficial GS"). I still feel the same about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

So what can you tell about Edge's name bold on Triple Crown article?

sorry, but I dont think so. Edge regin wasn't sancionated, so he isn't a grand slam. Simple, no unofficial, he wasn't a grand slam. Also, we don't pur the miz when we have a source saying that he is a grand slam because the source don't say the combination. We are wikipedia, we need sources. We can't choose who is official or unofficial champion. We haven'ta source saying that edge is a grand slam, less than the miz--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

There are several photos showing Edge hold the HC title belt. As visible on the TV, I thought that it might worth to be notable. And I agree that ionTV's claim is rotten. OnurT 13:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. We have also photos of Booker T as the TNA World Heavyweight Champion. Also, we have a video where RVD defeated The Undertaker for the WWE title, but the reigns aren't official. Also, Eric Young held the TNA World Heavyweight belt, but the belt was desactivated. No, WWE says that the Hardcore Title was unified with the IC and Edge wasn't a champion. Until WWE says that the Foley/Edge reign was official, Edge wasn't a Grand Slam because he wasn't Hardcore champion. I like to see Edge like a Grand Slam Champion, but this is Wikipedia, we need sources. In that case, we can put that The Miz is a Grand Slam (we have a source), Big Show is a WCW Triple Crown Winner (without sources) and that Bret Hart was the 1997 Royal Rumble winner because Steve Austin was eliminated. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No need to make such jokes, but I would want Yasemin Mori's 2nd album should be released 3 years earlier even if with a different name. Nuff said. OnurT 18:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

MMA Consolidation and Pro-Wrestlings over proliferation on Wikipedia

MMA events have been consolidated to one article while pro-wrestling has individual articles for this and WrestleMania. Consider consolidated this non-sense soap-opera to a single article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:B200:33D:4E7:C735:DFE8:C67E (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Combine an article about 29 separate WWE events with a listing of champions from three promotions? Considered, and it's ridiculous. Besides, most top MMA events still have separate articles, despite a few efforts. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for Active or Retired WWE contenders

As I have seen some people remove Bubba/DDP (I added them back) I think if there are disagreements on who belongs on the contender's list, I think we should come up with some clear criteria for who belongs on the list.

I would posit, out of interest of keeping Undertaker on the list, that the criteria for an active WWE wrestler would be "has wrestled a match for the WWE in the past year". Anyone have any other ideas for criteria of inclusion?

I also posit, out of interest of record-keeping, that we demote people taken off this list to a 'retired' list after it (which I've begun creating) so that when someone comes out of retirement we can easily know where they are, or if someone enters retirement we still have their records on hand.

Only if the person dies should we really take them off. Ranze (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The criteria is Active wrestlers under contract with the company. We don't know if Bubba signed a contract with WWE. 2, DDP isn't an active wrestler. 3 Undertaker never mentioned he is retired. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The Royal Rumble's been around long enough to where we can safely assume the "surprise entrants" are temporary. Now and then, something crazy happens and Mr. Perfect and Big Boss Man wind up in the future, but until we see something like that from these two, best to chalk it up to one of those "appearances" the Legend contract requires. Beats signing autographs in Idaho. No sane person is going to be WWE Champion for Legend contract money.

Undertaker's deal has also been around long enough to assume he's not done. He's just like Santa. If he doesn't show up for WrestleMania, then we can wonder. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We still need fair criteria for which to include or exclude people from the contender's list. I don't think we necessarily even know Undertaker's contract status. All we know is who we see wrestle day in and day out. Bubba/Diamond/Dogg/Gunn are all recently active, having competed at the Royal Rumble pay-per-view. Other people on this list like Taker/Henry have not wrestled in a good while. I am going to state the criteria as 'in the last year' in interest of retaining Taker and add them back. Ranze (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Criteria is clear. Active WWE wrestlers. DDP Gunn, Dogg and Bubba made one, two appearences and they aren't in the WWE roster, so they aren't active WWE wrestlers. Again, Taker stills as an active WWE wrestler, even he appears only in WM.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Defunct titles

The WWE's tertiary titles have in parenthesis that the title is defunct for while they are no longer options.

With the WWE/WHW being unified and the 2 tag titles being unified, should we also do something along these lines for those columns?

If someone does get added to the list as of a result of winning a unified title I foresee some formatting issues... would it be possible to merge the 2 columns for that particular row to show that both were won simultaneously under the new name?

I don't agree with the first column being "WWE World Heavyweight" because it wasn't unified with Heavyweight back when these guys won them. Ranze (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

List of non-active contenders for WWE version

Even if we don't list it on the page because they haven't competed within the last year, I think we should keep track of this on the talk page in case people come back, so posting it here:

Needs 1:

• Prime+tag+tert: Mick Foley requires the Intercontinental Championship
• IC+tag+tertiar: Val Venis requires the WWE World Heavyweight Championship

Needs 2:

• I.C. +tertiary: Pat Patterson requires the WWE World Heavyweight and Tag Team championships
• tag + tertiary: Al Snow and Hardcore Holly and Sean Waltman and Spike Dudley and Tazz and Thrasher (wrestler) require the WWE World Heavyweight and Intercontinental championships

Needs 3, only tertiary, require the WWE World Heavyweight and Tag Team and Intercontinental Championships:

• Christopher Nowinski
• Cynthia Lynch
• Gerald Brisco
• Joey Abs
• Jon Hugger (was tag champ in WCW)
• Justin Credible (was WHW/Tag champ in ECW tho)
• Maven (wrestler)
• Molly Holly (may only need 2 if WWE Women's title counts)
• Perry Saturn (was tag champ in ECW and WCW)
• Pete Gas
• Raven (wrestler) (was tag champ in WCW+ECW and WHW in ECW)
• Rhino (wrestler) (was US champ in WCW)
• Rodney (wrestler)
• Shane McMahon
• Shawn Stasiak (was tag champ in WCW)
• Shoichi Funaki
• Steve Blackman
• Stevie Richards (was tag champ in ECW)
• Terri Runnels
• Tommy Dreamer (was WHW champ in ECW)
• Trish Stratus (may only need 2 if WWE Women's title counts)

Also to keep track of people who held Tertiary titles but then died before becoming Grand Slam:

• Crash Holly
• Mike Awesome
• Test (wrestler)
• Viscera (wrestler)

X-pac did actually appear on Raw on January 19 (I guess you only get kept out of WWE in PG era for doing porn if you're a woman?) but although he was involved in an encounter with Ascension, I think our criteria should actually be "wrestled a match" to qualify someone as active and to be displayed on the page. Otherwise we would have to list Foley since he's been in non-match encounters too.

Anyone feel free to add to the above list if I missed someone. We might consider whether the ECW or WCW versions of the World Heavyweight Championship or Tag Team Championship might at some day be considered to fulfill it as well. The WWE is certainly capable of doing so retroactively if they wish to. Can anyone find any evidence of that? Plus I'm sure we're all keeping our eyes open to know if ECW/US ever come to fulfill secondary/tertiary status. Ranze (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

We can't "decide" which titles are included in the Grand Slam. We can't include WCW or ECW titles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you put that word in quotes I did not say that. We should keep track of how close candidates are so we know when they approach being on the list. Now that there is a new format we need to make a new list like this. Ranze (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Bryan

US champion 9/19/2010 - Night of Champions IC champion as of WM31 World Heavyweight Champion - 12/18/2011 - TLC Unified Tag Champion - 9/16/2012 - Night of Champions WWE World Heavyweight Champion - Wrestlemania 30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.17.186 (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As you can read in past discussions, we haven't concluded that the US title is part of the grand slam.LM2000 (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind all that, see this WT:PW thread.LM2000 (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Gold = Won all Grand Slam eligible titles.

Chris Jericho should be in Gold on the old WWE definition. 90.195.150.31 (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Under New Criteria

So with this new criteria, if you have held the WWE Championship, the Tag Titles, US Title (either WWE or WCW) and IC title then you are part of the new Grand Slam. So under this new criteria, shouldn't Ric Flair and Chris Benoit both be recognized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.162.173 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No. Benoit didn't win the WWE Championship and Flair didn't win the WWE Tag Team Championship--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the new criteria count either World Championship (either the WWE or World Heavyweight Championship) as well since it is also a primary? retched (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

WWE explained it very well:4 TITLES, no less, no more. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What about Austin? The current US Title is a continuation of the WCW US Title, which Austin picked up (however briefly) in 1994. That would give him the set of four needed for a Current Grand Slam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.167.67.212 (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Austin never held the current tag titles (the Raw ones, which are what the grand slam criteria count when it was last revised). He held the now-retired World Tag Team Championships. So no, he doesn't have the modern grand slam. oknazevad (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

US Title - Eddie G 1997 win

If that doesn't count how comes Edge's reign from '01 is counted? when he held it and it was still called the WCW U.S. Title and still under the WCW banner!

Edge won the title in the WWF. Also, WWE decided not to use WCW reigns. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

To clarify this, WWE decided to count only the title reigns while the belt was under WWE's ownership rather than all WWE and WCW championship reigns. When Edge won the title, WWE owned the WCW and was using the WCW titles as if they were WWE belts (just with WCW names and their version of the "WCW" logo on them). Eddie Guerrero held the title belt under each ownership, the WWE and WCW. So in the article, WWE opted to count only the WWE "version" of the United States Championship and not the WCW "version" and thus, that's what counts. If the article/photo gallery were to be updated by WWE to include WCW reigns, then you can be on to something. But it's not, so we only count the WWE owned title reigns instead. retched (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

2 or 3 away

Seeing as how the main page tracks people who are 1 title away I think we should use the talk to track those 2 or 3 away so we know who to monitor to bump up onto the page if they win something.

Since people even like to delete things off the main page who are 1 away based purely on circumstantial "I don't think they are active" silliness I will also copy that here:

• Billy Gunn (O), Goldust (O), Road Dogg (O), Val Venis (O), William Regal (O), and Kofi Kingston (N) require the WWE World Heavyweight Championship.
• Mick Foley (O), The Undertaker (O), and John Cena (N) require the Intercontinental Championship.
• Triple H (N*), Chris Jericho (N*), and Kane (N*) require the United States Championship.

Similar to earlier: #List of non-active contenders for WWE version I dug up some previous data on the page, though this is all based on the Old version so we need to brainstorm candidates who are 2 or 3 away in the new version. Would be quite a lot so focusing on just 2 would be good.

If we are to exclude 'inactive' from consideration we need criteria. We need a period of time that the person has not done something like wrestled a match or appeared on WWE television or something like that. Until we can agree on specifically what that criteria is, nobody should remove anything. People were content to leave Undertaker back in January while removing Billy Gunn and Road Dogg even though the New Age Outlaws had appeared and wrestled on TV more recently than Undertaker. Only after his WrestleMania match with Bray is Taker once again more recent.

• Mark Henry requires the Intercontinental and Tag Team Championships.
• Bubba Ray Dudley and Diamond Dallas Page and R-Truth require the Intercontinental and WWE World Heavyweight Championships.

• Mick Foley requires the Intercontinental Championship
• Val Venis requires the WWE World Heavyweight Championship
• Spike Dudley requires the WWE World Heavyweight and Intercontinental championships
• Pat Patterson requires the WWE World Heavyweight and Tag Team championships
• Shane McMahon and Tommy Dreamer and Trish Stratus require the WWE World Heavyweight and Tag Team and Intercontinental Championships

Who has ideas for list under new format? Ranze (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

We have the criteria. 1, one title away. 2, the wrestler is under contract with WWE (Venis, Dudley... out) 3, the wrestler is a active member of the roster as wrestler. Right now, NAO, Patterson are producers/trainers. Taker, stills active, even if he wrestled one date per year. Same to Regal. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: the criteria needs clarification. 1 is clear enough, we can agree that's not under dispute. 3 is one I want you to clarify now. What is your criteria for "an active member of the roster as wrestler" ? Is it "one date per year"? If so, then why did you remove Billy Gunn and Road Dogg from the list? Also you have not posted references supporting who is or is not under contract with the WWE. If you wish for this to be a criteria then it burdens you with either:

1. give evidence that Undertaker is still under contract
2. give evidence that Billy Gunn and Road Dogg are not under contract

Per Royal_Rumble_(2015)#Results both Dogg and Gunn wrestled 25 Jan 2015 which is less than 1 year ago. Also worth noting that even after this, when Taker hadn't wrestled since Mania 2014, you removed them Feb 8, a mere 2 weeks after they competed at the Rumble, and over 10 months since Taker had last competed.

What I will do, in restoring Dogg/Gunn/Regal to the page (admittedly Foley, while present in WWE, hasn't wrestled a match) is list the last known date they competed in, along with Taker. We don't have to bother with current Roster guys like Cena/Kofi of course, but it's important to spell out this criteria and show how people conform to it. Ranze (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Active wrestler is a wrestler who perform as a wrestler. Gunn and Dogg are trainers, with some special appearences as wrestlers. I think we should keep it simple, it's a pain to track wrestlers calendar, include and delete names month after month. Maybe we should delete the list, only Champions, no potential champions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Being a trainer does not mean that you haven't performed as a wrestler. Getting a title shot at a pay-per-view is hardly a "special appearance". Taker only wrestles once a year too. If you keep him on, you have to keep the others on. We should keep the list as it informs people of candidates. If the match lists appearing on the page bothers you, I will comment it out as I restore this.

We need impartial criteria for who to include. "Had a WWE match in the past year" is simple and easy to do. For all we know, Taker is also injured/out, if you want to speculate on behind-scenes stuff like that then you need to provide actual sourced evidence for who is still under contract. If you can't then we can't make this a basis. Ranze (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The criteria is simple. Active WWE wrestlers. No trainers, no producers. But fuck it, potential champions are gone if we can't have one simple criteria. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I shortened the period from 12 months to 9 months so as to exclude Santino/RVD, to keep you happy. Just know that 3 months prior to mania this will probably mean removing the Undertaker.

Being a trainer doesn't matter, people can wrestle and train too. The fact is: if we're including Jericho, he last wrestled in September and the New Age Outlaws last wrestled (on a pay-per-view, for a championship, no less, bigger than Jericho's booking) in January.

BTW does anyone know someone who has won WWE/IC/US titles (all singles) but no the tag titles? Nobody came to mind, seems like one "1 away" category with no contenders.

Also please stop removing the coded-invisible notes about the wrestlers who are 1 away but haven't wrestled recently (we can remove those notes when they die, no sooner) and the coded-invisible notes about wrestlers who are 2 away (this tells us where to look whenever someone wins a title they've never had) Ranze (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Numbers at the format lists

Since there are two Grand Slam formats now, I've added a number column, featuring the spot a superstar is on the overall Grand Slam list, in order of whenever that superstar has accomplished the feat. By adding it, it would be easier for people to find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacked14 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

John Layfield and the new criteria

He has won the WWE and IC and US championships.

With Farooq as part of The Acolytes, he and Farooq won tag titles twice in 1999 and once in 2001.

This was when it was known as the WWF Tag Team Championship.

It was known as the "WWE World Tag Team Championship" from May to October in 2002.

I guess since it became the "World Tag Team Championship" even though that is half of the unified titles, it doesn't count?

So he seems to be one of the guys who is 1 away and an old-style grand-slam like Jericho/Kane/Trips.

Since he hasn't wrestled recently I won't display him, but I will do an invisible comment so we can keep track.

It's not impossible for him to come out of retirement and win a tag title so we should consider that. Ranze (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Implications of Kurt Angle inclusion

WWE recognized Kurt but I do not think Kurt has ever won a WWE United States Championship.

He did win a WCW United States Championship on 22 October 2001 before dropping it to Edge, who then retired it upon winning the IC title and unifying them. It was brought back as the WWE United States Championship in 2003.

I think this serves as proof that the WWE will recognize past non-"WWE" reigns of titles when calculating their new grand slam.

For that reason, we should not just keep an eye out for WWE United States champs, but also WCW United States champs. I was overlooking them previously. Ranze (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

WWE gave us a list of their grand slam champions. WWE included the WCW title in WWE (Angle and Edge). However, WWE includes Guerrero WWE reign, not WCW (WCW) reign. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The U.S. Title became WWE property in March 2001 as part of the WCW buyout. Regardless of what the title was called at that point, WWE had ownership of the title when Angle and Edge held it. WWE didn't own the U.S. Title in 1997 when Guerrero won it the first time, but they did when he won it in 2003, which is why they count that reign and not the other in regards to the Grand Slam (but they do recognize the 1997 reign as part of the total history of the U.S. Title). Vjmlhds (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Austin and Benoit

Regarding Special:Diff/665207809 I explicitly said in the note "died 2007 so can never qualify" so the sarcastic "Certain, Benoit is a candidate" remark was not needed. It was simply making a note of him amongst the meta-list of people who have come close, but for whatever reason (deceased, inactive, etc) we don't list them.

I recognize I made a mistake including Austin alongside JBL, forgot the WWF tag actually is World Tag. Will list him among the 2-fers. Ranze (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Chris Benoit's United States Title

I was reading in here and you guys are using reigns that's only in the WWE Banner, if that's the case I've noticed the date for Chris Benoit first win for the United States Title was August 9, 1999 while he was in WCW. His first WWE United States Title reign was August 21,2005 using the WWE Banner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.194.35 (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed Benoit from the list. Much as I personally think that WHW reigns should count as a primary reign in the new format, they do not, so he doesn't qualify, since he did not win the WWE Championship. Ranze (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Section removal

@Vjmlhds: please do not remove 'color guide' or 'candidates' subsectioning. These are not part of the 'new format' section as they each pertain both to the old and new styles, describing their color codes and candidates.

If you want to subtract a section header then I would suggest we move the color code to the top preceding the old-style chart. Candidates should still have its own section though.

The notes for the titles-needed should also not be removed, meta data like this cannot be relegated to the talk page where it will be archived over time. It is something we need to constantly monitor as time goes on. Ranze (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see what the purpose of removing those sections is... Prcc27 (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Nor do I, I don't think we should be permitting the continued removal of content from the page. Ranze (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: since you just reverted yet again, I figure you are online. I am contacting you a second time, to fulfill the requirements of WP:DISCFAIL. So that we can avoid going through that procedure, please justify the mass removal of chart and wrestler data from the page. I find you are disrupting the page by doing that and that your edit summaries have been dismissive. Rather than discussing individual talking points or trying to reach a compromise, you just seem to keep brute-forcing the removal of data. Ranze (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ranze: Your way is overly convoluted, difficult to read, and way too loosey goosey on the one away list. Please limit one aways to guys who are at least semi-active. Santino is long retired. The way things were was fine as is with no complaints...if it ain't broke, don't fix it. When you have 2 editors telling you to back off, then it's kinda time to fold 'em. Vjmldhs (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not solely my way. The color scheme you remove from the table was introduced by another editor. 2 v 1 is hardly reason to back off, although I appreciate the "numbers game" in WWE.

If you wish retirement to be reason for exclusion hat is fine. But only if you understand that applying this requires you to supply a reference. As in you do not delete the information. You comment it out and in the source code supply the reference proving he person is officially retired.

Whatever reason you use you must state and must support. I think easiest is include anyone with a wwe.com profile. Ranze (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Jay Lethal one title away from a Ring Of Honor Grand Slam?

If Jay Lethal won the ROH World Tag Team would he be the first ROH Grand Slam Champion? Because Lethal has won the ROH World Championship, the ROH Television Championship and the defunct ROH Pure Championship. 90.194.66.149 (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we include the FTW Championship here for ECW as part of ECW Grand Slam? If so, there is only two that achieved the ECW Grand Slam.

Sabu and Tazz are ECW Triple Crown winners but they would also be the only ones to achieve an ECW Grand Slam if we include the ECW FTW Championship for an ECW Grand Slam despite the fact the ECW FTW Championship is similar to the Million Dollar Championship in the World Wrestling Federation in that it was not an officially sanctioned championship. 90.194.66.149 (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not against it, but isn't there something like we need a reliable source calling it a grand slam to have us describe it as so? Like maybe if Sabu and Tazz went on a tirade about being Grand Slammers then we'd have it. Also, if this, then why not include Ryder's Internet Championship or DiBiase's Million Dollar Title? Ranze (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Project and criteria

@HHH Pedrigree: you said "the project didn't agree". Could you please specify where you got this information? Was this discussed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling somewhere? Whose specific agreement is 'the project'? Are you effectively 'the corporation' or 'the authority' here? Ranze (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Evolution is a mystery, full of change that no one sees. It's all about control and if you can take it. Bow down to The Game! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Now that you bring up the name, I am constantly mispelling his name as "Pedigree", dat R is hard to notice/remember sometimes. Ranze (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of possibilities?

I just noticed this edit but the list of criteria for future grand slam champions was removed at some point. Was this deliberate? Or are we no longer listing the "these guys are one belt away"? retched (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

After digging around a bit, I can see the consensus reached on the project page. Fair enough, consider it dropped. retched (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Brand color coding

Do we really need this anymore? Not only is the roster split "brand extension" long gone at this point, but from a historical perspective, the titles moved around so many times that, outside of the ECW Championship, none of them had a particularly strong "brand" identity, and ultimately it's irrelevant whether the wrestler was on Raw or Smackdown for any particular win. Plus it's wholly unneeded for the "new" Grand Slam definition, as it was explicitly defined in the post-roster split WWE. So at the very least I would remove the colors from that box. oknazevad (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right; I've removed the colours from the Current format table because brands didn't exist by this point. Ozdarka (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Dean Ambrose

Does Dean really qualify if he never physically defended the belt alongside either of his team mates? He's not credited with a reign on his individual page either. Maybe I'm missing something vital about the Freebird rule, though. TFlarz (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ambrose has not been a tag champ. The Shield did not use the Freebird Rule. Period. So he is not a grand slam champion. oknazevad (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

In case it needs to be said, Michael Hayes also didn't win jack when The Hardy Boyz beat The Acolytes. But Badstreet was totally a six-man champ, for much simpler reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Slam (professional wrestling). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070419230223/http://www.wwe.com:80/inside/titlehistory/intercontinental/322668 to http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/intercontinental/322668
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wwe.com/superstars/wwealumni/rvd/bio/http:/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

United States a Tertiary title?

Can evidence and a reliable source be provided backing up this fairly weird claim. It was secondary in WCW and is the Second title on the show it appears. Stating it is tertiary seems ridiculous. Also if it is when did it become tertiary and not a second secondary title. This seems to be without proper sourcing. Sport and politics (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It's equal to the IC title, I'd support removing "tertiary" and replacing it with something else if someone has a better idea.LM2000 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The issue is, unlike the Universal title, which is a substitute for the WWE Championship, or the SD tag titles as a substitute for the Raw ones, a wrestler need both the IC and US titles to have a grand slam, while having the same header for both implies that only one is needed (as it does for the tag and heavyweight titles). We should at the very least note that both titles are needed and one is not a substitute for the other. oknazevad (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Would something like this suffice the information?

retched (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what I had in mind. We can probably make the notes belriefer; just need to say "one championship needed" for the first two and "both championships needed" for the secondary column. But the idea is sound. oknazevad (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Modified my table about. Would that do? retched (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. oknazevad (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Edge

Edge has it under the original format. He has the hardcore belt.--WillC 09:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That's was unofficial. See the above section on this. oknazevad (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

WWE Section

Why is there a lack of wrestlers mentioned who are close to obtaining the Grand Slam? I know the article used to mention it. For example, John Cena only needs the Intercontinental Championship to become a Grand Slam Champion. Why does it at least not mention those who are within one title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.7.77 (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

We used to have a section like this but consensus was to remove it. It really took on a life of its own.LM2000 (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Who decided that both the IC and US title were needed under the new format?

Why has it been changed from one Secondary title to both? 2A02:8084:42E1:5B00:3815:AA33:521E:5383 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The WWE decided. If a wrestler has only one secondary title, they're a triple crown champion, not a grand slam one. See the references. oknazevad (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

TNA/GFW Criteria

By the definition of the Grand Slam, all available titles (but at least 4), should the TNA (now GFW) definition change? I mean they announced the Grand Championship would be replacing the former King of the Mountain championship. Wouldn't that in theory put it as a replacement/alternative to the original red belt (Global/TV/KoTM/etc.)? retched (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sidenote: One of my edit notes was botched, the names of the new GFW titles are the Unified GFW ______ and not the United GFW _____. Kind of mistyped it so bleh. retched (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, as the article notes, we haven't seen any statement to that effect from the company. Would it surprise me if it were to be considered such in the future? Not at all. But it seems like it's pretty far from a priority for them, which is understandable as they still settle in to all the changes of the last 6 months or so. As for us making such a statement without GFW saying such, that's no good at all, per WP:NOR. oknazevad (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with oknazevad. As you can see from scrolling above, we spent years debating how the US title fit into WWE's grand slam. A lot of us were pretty sure it was somehow part of it but we couldn't do anything without a source from the company. It took them forever, but eventually they introduced the "new criteria" which includes the US title. I'm also sure the Grand title fits into GFW's grand slam but it's WP:OR until they actually confirm it themselves.LM2000 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Could Stone Cold technically be considered a Grand Slam Champion under the modern format?

He was a multi-time tag champion, WWE Champion, Intercontinental Champion, and held the US title in WCW.

He TECHNICALLY could be held as a grand slam, but WWE doesn't count the reigns of the titles prior to the purchase of WCW for the purpose of the Grand Slam. So while he held the WCW United States title, he never won it while it was part of the WWE banner. retched (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

They also don't count the old WWF/World tag title, just the current Raw and SmackDown ones. Bret Hart and Ric Flair would also be Grand Slam winners under the new format if they counted WCW US and WWF tag titles.LM2000 (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)