Talk:Grand Slam (professional wrestling)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Grand Slam Champion Qualifications

I may be wrong, but don't Kurt Angle and Eddie Guerrero belong on this list

Angle: WWE Champion, World Champion, WWE Tag Team Champion (Note: 1), Intercontinential Champion, European Champion

Guerrero: WWE Champion, WWE Tag Team Champion (Note: 1), Intercontinential Champion, European Champion

Notes

(1) Grandslam "Requires" World Tag Team Championship, but with the introduction of the World Title, it is eligable for a grandslam, so wouldent the WWE tag team titles qualify also, making Eddie Guerrero and Kurt Angle both grandslam winners.

WWE have never stipulated whether or not the WWE Tag Team Championship is an acceptable substitute for the World Tag Team Championship. It seems as though it would, but this is a clear case of original research. WWE.com identifies Triple H and Shawn Michaels as Grand Slam Champions, and Chris Jericho identifies himself as a Grand Slam Champion on his website. However, no such claims are made about or by Angle or Guerrero. McPhail 17:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that JR mentioned that Kurt Angle was a Grand Slam Champion in Wrestlemania 22, indicating that the WWE Tag Team Championship an appropriate substitute for the WWF Tag Team Championship.

This needs a source. McPhail 15:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

http://auction.wwe.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=64226926&prmenbr=37460399&aunbr=64573636 I realize that this comes from the WWE store website, so this might not be enough, but this page does quote as Angle being a "former Grand Slam Champion." If you do a search for "Grand Slam Champion" on wwe.com, it comes up with two sites for Kurt Angle.

OK, that's great, thanks. McPhail 22:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

(2) I have to debate the objectivity of this article. Although WWE may be the dominate leader in this industry at this time, this article should be discussing Wrestling Grand Slam Champions and not limit its scope to WWE stars. If you take into account that stars hold titles in different companies (i.e. NWA, WCW, ECW, and NWA-TNA), then this list would dramatically change.

I would suggest a revision based on the tier system being used currently to include the following (feel free to add things I miss):

Tier 1 - Highest Level - World Champion or Company Champion, including WWE, WCW, NWA, NWA-TNA, AND ECW

Tier 2 - "Top Contender" status - WWE Intercontinental or U.S. Championship, WCW U.S. Championship, NWA-TNA X Division Championship, NWA U.S. Championship, and ECW World Television Championship

Tier 3 - "Stepping Stone" status - WWE European or Hardcore Championship, WCW World Television or Hardcore Championship, and NWA World Television Championship

Tier 4 - Tag Team Championship - WWE Tag Team or World Tag Team Championship, WCW World Tag Team Championship, NWA World Tag Team Championship, NWA-TNA World Tag Team Championship, and ECW World Tag Team Championship

I cannot find a a decent list of AWA's Championships, so feel free to alter this to include them.

The scope of this article is limited to officially recognised "Grand Slam" accomplishments. I don't believe WCW, ECW and TNA have ever formally recognised such an accolade. McPhail 23:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this article is limited to WWE Grand Slam winners. Therefore, the article should be retitled to "World Wrestling Enterainment Grand Slam Champions" or include other companies. Remember, we are discussing situations involving pre-written storylines. "Official" or "Unoffical" status can easily change with a stroke of the story writer's pen.

The reason that the article only mentions WWE Grand Slam winners is that WWE is the only wrestling company to formally recognise a "Grand Slam". 17:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

John Bradshaw Layfield

Is JBL now a Grand Slam Champion?

He hasn't won the WWF/E Intercontinental Championship. WWE have never stated that the US Championship is a suitable alternative. McPhail 21:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• • No, if the wwe never made the u.s. title an offical alternative, then he's not

Maybe this is just a thing, due to the fact that I am a jbl fan, but Layfield has held a European Championship, WWE Championship, U.S Championship, and the World Tag Team Belts. That justifys him being a grand slam champion. The last three are undisputed, but along with the European belt, he has also had the Hardcore Championship, which is another alterntive title.

Just because he has won a certain amount of titles doesn't qualify him for Grand Slam Champion status. If I have won a bunch of medals in college sports, it doesn't mean I'm an Olympic Gold Medalist. You can't deny my work in College, but it doesn't equal or elevate status. CGNU Scholar 20:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Chris Benoit

Chris Benoit won the World Championship along with the Intercontinental, European, and Tag Team Championship. Does the World Championship count?

According to WWE.com, it does: "Michaels was the first-ever Grand Slam Champion, capturing the European Championship once, the World Tag Team Championship three times, the Intercontinental Championship three times and the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships a total of four times". However, Benoit was never European Champion. McPhail 19:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Chris Benoit actually never won the european championship

triple crown designation

My feeling has always been that if the U.S. Championship can be used to determine a Triple Crown Champion, (with the reasoning that U.S. = Intercontinental) then it should be given the same treatment in determining a Grand Slam.

The difference in that is the Grand Slam always referred to four specific belts, until there were sources indicating acceptable substitutes. Triple Crown has never really been defined specifically. Tromboneguy0186 02:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

For the longest time, Big Show was credited with a Triple Crown even though he won the U.S. title and not the I-C.

JBL is too credited with a Triple Crown, and there has been no arguement on that point.

So if JBL can be accepted as a Triple Crown winner, why is he (in your mind) not accepted Grand Slam status.

If U.S. = I-C for the Triple Crown, it should apply to the Grand Slam as well.

I can't fault your logic, but this qualifies as original research. Unless WWE explicitly identifies Layfield as a Grand Slam Champion, or states that the US Championship is part of the Grand Slam, then he should not be listed in the article. The triple crown article is a mess, and is full of conjecture and extrapolation that hs no place in an encyclopedia. McPhail 13:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to argue with you on that point... what he has done is more appropriately defined as compilation, not original research. He has just collected already-in-place facts and pointed out the inconsistencies Clint 05:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Did WWE actually identify Big Show and Bradshaw as Triple Crown winners? McPhail 22:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

While I can appreciate that you want to wait for WWE to make it official, if the I-C and the U.S. titles are understood to be of equal value, why do we have to wait for WWE to officially bless JBL as a Triple Crown / Grand Slam Champion?

It is universally understood that the 2 "World" Titles and the 2 Tag Titles are of equal value, so what is the big difference between the U.S. and I-C titles?

The European Title was always (correctly) thought of as #3 on the totem pole behind the (then) WWF World Championship and the Intercontinental Championship.

The Euro has since been de-acvtiated.

When the Brand Split occured, a second "World" title and a second set of tag titles were introduced and they were (in no uncertain terms) implied to be the equals of the originals.

So when the I-C title was brought back to Raw in June 2003, Smackdown brought out the U.S. title within a month, and without just outright saying so, it was obvious that the U.S. would be the equal counterpart to the I-C.

If you look at how each Brand is set up, we have a Primary title (WWE / World Championship), a Secondary title (I-C / U.S.), a Tag title (WWE / World), and a specialty title (Women's / Cruiserweight).

Now since the specialty titles have their own unique restrictions (gender/weight), they are irrelevant to this discussion.

But, I go back to my original question. If the primary and tag titles are accepted as equals, what is stopping the secondaries from being thought of the same way?

The primary and tag titles are only accepted as equals because WWE has explicitly stated that this is the case. They have made no such statements with regards to the US title. McPhail 19:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you, putting aside WWE's "official" stance, believe JBL is a Grand Slam Champion?

Personally, I think the concept is somewhat meaningless after the roster split. The whole point of the original grand slam was that Michaels had dominated the company by winning all the top belts; winning four of eight titles is no great feat. But regardless of what I think, Wikipedia does not accept original research. The Grand Slam Champion article is a factual account of the term as used by WWE; nothing more, nothing less. McPhail 22:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I will grudgingly accept WWE's gospel on this one.

To be honest, I'm glad the Euro title is gone. It really didn't mean squat in the long run

These days, it would be more of a feat to win all 6 current major WWE titles (both "World" titles, I-C, U.S., and both tags).

Although there is no official name for this accomplishment, would you agree that a "Deluxe Triple Crown" would trump any Slam winner?

No doubt. McPhail 15:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Who is the closest to managing said feat out of interest? Angle and Michaels I assume, with four of the six each (IC belt, WWE and Heavyweight belts, and one each of the two tag belts)? Or is there someone with five?

Angle is a former US Champion, although his reign took place when the title was known as the WCW US Championship. McPhail 14:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you discount Angle (Since his US title reign was WCW) than the closest anyone has come so far is Chris Benoit, who has won both the IC and US title, Both the Raw and Smackdown tag title, and the World title. The only belt he would have to win would be the WWE title.

The US title on Smackdown shares the lineage of the WCW version of the title. It’s history in the WWE website includes the WCW part. So why wouldn’t Kurt Angle’s US Title history count?? I understand the logic in why it wouldn’t, but on a technicality, it should. In my opinion, all of Smackdown's Titles should share the lineage of the WCW's titles. They should switch the Tag Team Titles’ names and "revision" the lineage, to add WCW history to Smackdown’s Tag Titles, not to mention give the “WWE Tag Team Championship” name back to the original WWE Tag Team Titles. WWE owns WCW, they may as well be proud of something they bought and give the titles more credibility with a deeper history. WCW, like Smackdown, was the number 2 brand in the World. It's just my opinion.--Prince Patrick 18:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Re-Organization Of Site

I have re-organized the site so that there is only one heading of World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment instead of World Wrestling Federation, only because it is the same company, with a different name and way of gaining said championship. i have reorganized it so the main heading is World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment, with two sub-headings: World Wrestling Federation and World Wrestling Entertainment.

United States Championship

Shouldn't the WWE United States Championship qualify as a substitute for the WWE Intercontinental Championship, or at least the WWE European Championship being as there would no way be anymore Grand Slam Champions. Mannytime 22:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As discussed above, only titles that WWE have stated are part of the Grand Slam are included. There are references in the article for the World Heavyweight Championship and WWE Tag Team Championship being part of the Grand Slam, but no-one has yet produced a source for the United States Championship being part of the Grand Slam. We need sources, not logic, due to Wikipedia's no original research policy. McPhail 23:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the nix on potential future champions?

I added that in and then, in a step I probably should have taken beforehand, noticed that it's already been reverted out, so I self-reverted. But why not put it in? If any of this is useful information, it's noteworthy who is one belt shy. Tromboneguy0186 11:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's said in the article that there's no one to hold the Grand Slam with the World Heavyweight Title as an equivalent to the WWE Title. That's not true as Triple H is a multiple WHC Title Holder and HBK won it on Survivor Series 2002

They were Grand Slam Champions before winning the WHC. No-one has completed the Grand Slam by winning the WHC instead of the WWE Championship. McPhail 16:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Edge

Edge has won the Intercontinental, Tag Team, and WWE Heavyweight Championship, along with the US Championship during the Invasion angle of 2001, because of this I think he should be considered a Grand Slam Champion, the US Championship is more than equivalent to the European Championship.

Edge's U.S. title was still recognised as a WCW title at the time, so it wouldn't have counted anyway.

Besides, The U.S. title is the equivalent of the I-C title. So in order to win a Grand Slam, you have to win either the U.S. or I-C titles, along with the now defunct European title (with of course a WWE/World title and a tag title).

The US title on Smackdown shares the lineage of the WCW version of the title. It’s history in the WWE website includes the WCW part. So why wouldn’t Edge’s US Title history count?? I understand the logic in why it wouldn’t, but on a technicality, it should.--Prince Patrick 19:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris Jericho

Shouldn't his reign be listed as the Undisputed Title, since when he won it that's what it was known as?

He won the World Championship and WWF Championship in one night, thus becoming Undisputed Champion. McPhail 23:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

JBL

On a recent episode of Friday Night Smackdown, John "Bradshaw" Layfield (while in the midst of bickering with broadcast partner Michael Cole) compared himself to golfer Tiger Woods. JBL said that just as Woods won golf's Grand Slam, he (JBL) had won "wrestling's Grand Slam". This would appear to show that JBL (and presumably WWE) considers the WWE United States Championship to be an acceptable substitute for the Intercontinental Championship. Thus far, JBL is the only wrestler that has completed the Grand Salm under this revised definition.

This is not the most elegant wording and it lacks a citation. Is this good enough to add JBL to the list? Tromboneguy0186 07:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

JBL's comments

JBL made these comments during the recent Undertaker vs King Booker match.

JBL was talking about how great Booker was, and Michael Cole told him that he was just sucking up to the champ.

JBL then told Cole that just as Tiger Woods was a Grand Slam champion in golf, he (JBL) was a Grand Slam champion in wrestling, so he knew greatness when he saw it, and continued to sing Booker's praises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlh (talk • contribs)

• When JBL first won the U.S. Title, he should have been added to the Grand Slam list right then and there.

• Every bit of logic, common sense, and just knowing wrestling says that I-C = U.S.

• But, we were told to wait for WWE to explicitly say JBL was a Slam winner. Fair enough.

• So, on August 4, 2006, The words "Just like Tiger Woods is a Grand Slam winner in golf, I am a Grand Slam winner in wrestling." came out of JBL's mouth. The man said on national TV he was a Slam winner, and that is still not good enough for some people?

• What else do you need? Maybe if they did like DX and spray paint it on the side of WWE HQ, would that convince you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.71 (talk • contribs)

What else do you need? A citation from WWE like the ones for Angle and Michaels, not a comment made in passing by Layfield himself. Tromboneguy0186 03:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

WWE allowed JBL's statements to be broadcast on their air waves, which means either that they concur with him or they just let him rabble on and they don't pay attention to him.

Regardless, that has to mean at least something.

It's also a possibility that they told him to say it (along with name dropping Tiger Woods) as to put King Booker over, which is what he was doing to begin with.

I still am not convinced! because JBL said that doesnt mean he is a grand slam champion! There has not been anything that has ever been said that equates the US and Intercontinental Championship. Until we get some kind of approval from the WWE That says the US Championship can be used as a substitute, we cannot go jumping to comclusions because of a flippant comment made by someone on the commentary team! --Fr3nZi3 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JBL knows wrestling.

From the way he talks about the territories, to the way he brings up names from the past to compare to today's wrestlers, it's obvious he's a student of wrestling history.

So if he calls himself a Grand Slam Champion, it has some credibility behind it.

Devil's advocate speak now: JBL's statement can be thought of being within the context of kayfabe, so within kayfabe he is a self-proclaimed Grand Slam Champion. As no other kayfabe-independent source can verify JBL's claim, then we cannot claim that here either. So if, say, Jim Ross could verify JBL's claim on Raw, and Ross is not involved in a storyline with JBL at the time, we can claim that the US title counts for the Grand Slam here. If wwe.com says something about JBL being a Grand Slam Champion that's out of kayfabe, we can say that the US title counts for the Grand Slam here. Heck, some may say that if JBL himself writes in his out-of-kayfabe business column that he is a GSC, then we can say that here. We can even say that if PWI considers the US title as an IC-substitute we can add JBL onto the list. kelvSYC 01:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the statement was allowed to go over WWE's airwaves should indicate that WWE gave at least some amount of blessing to it.

Notice that nowhere on WWE.com does it have Eddie Guerrero or RVD listed as Grand Slam Champions, but because they have won already confirmed combinations of titles, we can call them Grand Slam winners.

Quite honestly, any designation of a Grand Slam or Triple Crown is subject to kayfabe, because remember, this is pro wrestling we are talking about here.

So if anybody within WWE claims that someone is a Triple Crown or Grand Slam winner, then kaybabe wise, we should take it as gospel.

The fact is, you can't insert original research into Wikipedia. Nobody except JBL comparing himself to Tiger Woods recently winning a Grand Slam isn't enough of a source. If wwe.com or another verifiable external website says it, then thats enough, but there isn't except blogs and users on Wikipedia claimng this. semper fi — Moe 15:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a Marine I see. Thank you for your service, sir.

But I respectfully disagree with you on JBL. The reason that JBL's claim should stand is because the claim was made by a WWE wrestler on WWE TV. The difference is guys like HHH and Shawn Micheals have their status put up on a website, and others do not. In JBL's case, there is a reference point to back up his inclusion into the list, that being his statement on TV.

Guys like Eddie Guerrero or RVD also have not been referred to (on WWE TV or WWE.com) as Slam winners, but in those cases, it's just a matter of putting 2 + 2 together.

WWE TV and WWE.com are both branches of the same tree, if a statement is made on one, it should count the same as if made by the other.

Yes, Guerrero, RVD, HBK and HHH have all the IC championship, and JBL hasn't. If anything, that whole "I won the grand slam championship of professional wrestling" was a coincidence as he was comparing himself to Tiger Woods (after he won his Grand Slam), which happened at the same time. I would like to include it based on this fact, but it's strickly against the policies WP:V and WP:OR. If you could provide a source that the United States CHampionship is interchangable with the IC Championship other than JBL implying it, I will readd it myself. semper fi — Moe 20:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Shawn Micheals called himself the first Grand Slam Champion, and WWE ran with it, going over the top to put him over, JBL did the same thing in calling himself a Slam winner, the difference being that Mr. Layfield is now retired so there is no need to go crazy in trying to put him over. It doesn't make the claim any less true, though.

Plus, one other very important thing to consider:

Somebody either wrote that line for JBL to say or he ad-libbed it. Either way, he said it and that it went out over WWE airwaves has to mean it had to have WWE's blessing, or it would have been edited out.

Enough trolling from you. Unless you provide a source, it won't be added, end of story. semper fi — Moe 17:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, someone should contact WWE to figure this out. I've heard that this article and Triple Crown Champion has been semiprotected to get this mess sorted out. kelvSYC 05:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hardcore Champions

Should Chris Jericho and Rob Van Dam be given special consideration, because in addition to the World, Intercontinental, European, and Tag Team belts, they are each Hardcore champions. No other wrestlers has held all five major belts.

JBL has also held the Hardcore title.

• The Hardcore title was never part of the Grand Slam, and it was never considered a major title.

• It was considered a specialty title, just like the Cruiserweight and Women's titles.

• It's a nice little cherry on top of the sundae, but it doesn't figure in to the Grand Slam.

• The major titles are the main 3 titles, their Brand Extension counterparts, and the now defunct European Title.

• So if you want to talk about winning 5 major titles (within WWE), then that would be:

Chris Benoit (World, I-C, U.S., World Tag, and WWE Tag)--all active titles.

HHH and Shawn Micheals (WWE, World, I-C, World Tag, Euro)

Kurt Angle (WWE, World, I-C, WWE Tag, Euro)

Eddie Guerrero (WWE, I-C, U.S., WWE Tag, Euro)

RVD (WWE, I-C, World Tag, WWE Tag, Euro)

potential champions--only list those that are one away please.

Please keep potential champions down to those who are just one away please.

Clarification

RVD won his I-C title at Wrestlemania 18, prior to the brand extension.

Asking

I wonder if the European title was really a class-C title. I think that this title shares the same status as the US and I-C title. If I'm right, the Grand Slam configuration should be: a World title, two class-B title (US-IC,IC-Euro or US-Euro combination) and a tag team title. However, if WWE didn't made a statement, my hypothesis doesn't have any possible validation.

• The European Championship was always considered to be a step under the I-C title, and thus also a step under the U.S. Title as well.
• The I-C and U.S. belts are equals because they are both considered as secondary titles--I-C on Raw, U.S. on Smackdown.
• So to win a Grand Slam, you have to have either the I-C or U.S. Title AND a Euro Title to qualify.

Sorry, but we're not inserting your original research into Wikipedia. semper fi — User talk:Moe Epsilon 01:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just putting a theory to be considered, not a potential inclusion on the article. If I had submitted this as a entry on Wikipedia, that is ABSOLUTELY and original research. But I didn't, so LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT.

WCW

The WCW section is all original research. I put the OR tag there, and will delete the section in a few days unless someone can find a relaible source where WCW (or WWE) stated that there was a WCW Grand Slam Championship. TJ Spyke 21:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

JBL John 'Bradshaw' Layfeild is not listed as being a Triple Crown Winner when he has achieved the status

WWE Championship - June 27, 2004 World Tag Team Championship - May 25, 1999 (With Ron Simmons) WWE United States Champion - April 2, 2006 JBL called himself a Grand Slam Champion on 8-4-06.

It seems as though that there a select few that feel that his statement is irrelevant.

Let me ask this question:

Micheal Cole (rightfully) referred to Kurt Angle as a Grand Slam winner at Royal Rumble '03.

JBL called himself one on 8-4-06.

Why is it that when JBL calls himself one, it doesn't count?

Nowhere does it say on wwe.com that Eddie Guerrero or Rob Van Dam is a Grand Slam winner, but they are (rightfully) accepted as such.

At least JBL made a statement on National TV, calling himself a Slam winner, giving some credence to the argument that the U.S. Championship should be allowed to be swapped out for the I-C Championship.

RVD

Alot of people are being fools with the whole US title doesnt count against Triple Crown/Grand Slam when it clearly should that no one has realised another important issue, that RVD is not recognized as a European champion by WWE.[1] Therefore he shouldn't be on this page either. I can't edit because it's locked for no reason but someone should edit RVD out since he is not a Grand Slam winner.

• Go to ECW.com and click onto RVD's bio and it does list him as a European Champion.

I see that, which is why I provided the title history link to show that the company, for some stupid reason does or doesn't recognize his reign.

• Chalk up the Eurpoean Championship history omission to sloppiness on WWE.com's part, and just look at RVD's bio on ECW.com to see that he is indeed credited with a Euro Title. Funny thing is that they do give him credit for a Hardcore Title reign when he unified it with the I-C Title.

US Championship issue

There has been a lot of talk about if the US Championship was valid to be considered as a substitute of the I-C Championship. There was a valid support of the World Heavyweight Championship as a substitute. There was a valid support of the WWE Tag Team Championship as a substitute. But, just because Layfield says "I'm a Grand Slam Champion" was a valid criteria? This could be an interpretation made by himself (not scripted by WWE) and also, there wasn't been to this day an announcement by the WWE (like Shawn Michaels and Kurt Angle) supporting Layfield as a Grand Slam Champion. Obviously, Eddie Guerrero, Triple H, Rob Van Dam and Chris Jericho wasn't explicitly recognize as Grand Slam Champions, but they were consider to have this honor because they fulfilled the requirements. That's why I protected at all this page. I invited to all the people affiliated to the WikiProject: Professional Wrestling, and also to all the editors of Wikipedia who got a interest in this issue. That's all for now. Xbox6 18:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I really have a hard time understanding why some people always want to delete the U.S. Championship from consideration.

• Let's look at this step by step:

• • 2002--Brock Lesnar takes the WWE Championship to Smackdown, so Raw GM Eric Bischoff creates the World Championship for Raw. Both Championships are understood to be of the same value.
  • Still in '02--WWE Tag team Champions Lance Storm and Christian jump from Smackdown to Raw, so Smackdown GM Stephanie McMahon sets up a tournament to crown Tag Team Champions for Smackdown. Again, the gist is that both sets of titles were to be viewed as equals.
  • 2003--In early June, Raw co-GM "Stone Cold" Steve Austin announces a Battle Royale to crown a winner for the newly reactivated Intercontinental Title, so then a couple of weeks later, Stephanie McMahon set up a tournament for the newly reactivated United States Title. The timing of this was done purposely to show that the I-C and U.S. titles were to be viewed as parallel to each other.

• Even though Vince McMahon didn't come from the mountain top with stone tablets making a proclamation, all of these new titles were introduced in such a way as to show that they were the equals of the originals.

• It's just a simple case of putting 2 + 2 together and figuring it out, not everything has to be spelled out for something to be understood.

Vlh 19:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• That isn't prove anything. I just deduce this:

• • That effectively prove that the World Heavyweight Championship was a totally new title and, following the official statement by the WWE, didn't share any relationship with the WCW World Heavyweight Championship.
  • Also was a prove that the WWE Tag Team Championship was a new title.
  • And finally, just was a mention that the United States Championship was revived. But the fact that it was revived after the revival of the WWE Intercontinental Championship doesn't prove something different that the United States Championship is the B-title of SmackDown! And differencing from the World Heavyweight Championship, that title SHARES the lineage of the NWA and WCW United States Heavyweight Championship. IS NOT A NEW TITLE.

• What you don't seem to realize is that the brand extension titles are meant to serve as duplicates of the original titles.

• Each show has a World Champion, each has Tag Team Champions, each has a secondary champion, and each has a specialty champion (Cruiserweight/Women's).

• Raw and Smackdown each has a 4 title hierarchy so that a wrestler at a certain level would be thought of as the equal to his opposite number.

• The 2 World Champions are supposed to be thought of as equals (in this case John Cena and Batista). Ditto the secondary champions (Chris Benoit and Jeff Hardy), and the tag champs (though in reality Rated RKO are more highly thought of than London and Kendrick, in theory they are equals).

• How can inserting the U.S. Title in the Grand Slam be considered as original research when

1. A televised statement was made on national TV

2. A precedent has been set by PWI of always establishing that the I-C and U.S. Titles were the automatic #1 contenders of WWF and WCW World Titles in their rankings back in the day, and now today of Raw and Smackdown.

3. The status of the said titles on each brand's totem pole places them in the same spot (as the #2 champion of their brand).

• I am not disputing what is and isn't a new title, all I am pointing out is the reasons the titles were introduced, and where they are placed in the big picture.

Vlh 20:00 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection

This page has been putting on protection, at least until there was a pronunciation by the administrators. Please put your opinions about the issue that has been treated (US Championship issue). Xbox6 21:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering it's been settled that the US Title is part of the criteria for being a Triple Crown Champion, and a Grand Slam Champion is effectively someone who's a Triple Crown Champion plus a former European Champion, it makes sense to me to include the US title. I hope the debate over this doesn't reach the levels of the debate over the US title for the Triple Crown, but I would strongly urge people to allow the US Title as criteria for Grand Slam status. It could be the US title will never be used, in which case there's no issue, but we should allow for the possibility. Anakinjmt 03:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's end this

I have put JBL back on the Grand Slam list.

Before you rush to block me again for vandalism or whatever, let's put this to bed once and for all.

Let's put this to a vote beginning today and ending next Wednesday.

It will be a yea or nay vote.

If the vote is nay, I'll remove JBL myself and forever hold my peace.

If it's a yea vote, then he stays.

Vlh 21:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no voting on the matter, this is a policy which can not be overridden with a vote. semper fi — Moe 04:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I say the policy should be overridden by a vote, because this is outright ridiculous. The only thing stopping it from being gospel (according to Moe anyway) is that Vince McMahon hasn't proclaimed it from the mountain top.

Every hint in the world has been dropped to make this case.

There have been court cases that have been decided with less evidence.

Vlh 11:27 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing on Wikipedia is decided by a vote, and policies in particular can not be overridden. The policy called No original research makes it absolutely clear that this information can not be included. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)