Should the US title be apart of the Triple Crown?

[Showtime]

An interesting notion I just got after reading LegendThriller H4L's thread on CM Punk, that an already teddy harted poster posted in. The US title, long considered Smackdown's equivalent to RAW's IC title, is not apart of the WWE's Triple Crown of titles. Now, a Triple Crown means three titles, so that's something I can understand, there were once only three titles and that meant a big thing to win all three. Then (to further add to this discussion) they added the European title to this equation and thus we now had Grand Slam champions (WWE, IC, Euro, Tag). But now there are seven title's now, three equal sets of upper, middle and tag belts on RAW and Smackdown and the ECW title.

So the question now arises, should people who won the US title be considered Triple Crown winners as well, or are Cena, Big Show and JBL forever to be condemned to be an IC title short of achieving it? Or maybe should the WWE reconstruct their rules on what makes a Triple Crown winner and a Grand Slam winner, especially with the Grand Slam an almost impossibility to reach? (I think Matt Hardy and JBL are the only one's active who can still reach it)

Well since both world titles (the WWE and the WHC), as well as both tag titles are considered acceptable titles to become Triple Crown winners, then I don't see why the Smackdown equivalent to the IC title, the US title, shouldn't be considered an acceptable title to become a Triple Crown winner. The list of US champions over the past four years: Benjamin, Matt Hardy, MVP, Benoit, Kennedy, Finlay, Lashley, Booker T, Orlando Jordon, JBL, Cena; Easily equals and maybe surpasses the list of IC champions durng that same time period as well: CM Punk, Regal, Santino, Kofi, Jericho, Jeff Hardy, Umaga, Nitro, Benjamin, RVD, Flair, Carlito. I don't see any reason why the US title shouldn't be apart of the Triple Crown except for WWE's sheer refusal to go along with anything that would make sense if it affects the past. They don't want to make the US title an official second tier title because then they would have to go back and make Cena, JBL and Big Show into Triple Crown winners. They should've made it offical back when they introduced it, just like they did with the Smackdown tag belts.

As for the Grand Slam, it's simple. Rather than make the European the only belt you need to win to be Grand Slam, keep it and add the ECW title to third tier status, so now if you hold the ECW, a top tier, second tier and tag belt, your a Grand Slam winner. Now I know, these accomplishments should be hard to achieve and if we added all this we'd just be over filling it, but why not. If WWE doesn't want to change history, then they should just start creating a new one now, a new Triple Crown and a new Grand Slam for this era of wrestlers. Now, this is just my views on the whole situation. I'm most curious about what you guys all think about this.

 

[TwistofRKO]

No, I think it would be sufficient to just add relevance to the I.C., and the Tag divisions. The US belt just lacks luster and feels like the Cruiserweight title to me.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

NO! Plain and simple answer. Not a lot of logic needed, either.

The Triple Crown was the W.W.F.'s original core group of titles. When all three of them meant something. The Heavyweight Championship, Intercontinental Championship and Tag Team Championships.

The United States Championship is nothing more or less than an equal to the Intercontinental title, with exception of the name makes it seem less, actually. So no. The U.S. title doesn't need added to the Triple Crown accomplishment, because then it'd defeat the purpose of calling it a "Triple Crown" anyways.

As far as the likes of J.B.L., The Big Show & John Cena. I doubt any one of the three would truly care if they were or weren't apart of that group of individuals, as they've still accomplished a great deal in their careers.

 

[Showtime]

NO! Plain and simple answer. Not a lot of logic needed, either.

The Triple Crown was the W.W.F.'s original core group of titles. When all three of them meant something. The Heavyweight Championship, Intercontinental Championship and Tag Team Championships.

The United States Championship is nothing more or less than an equal to the Intercontinental title, with exception of the name makes it seem less, actually. So no. The U.S. title doesn't need added to the Triple Crown accomplishment, because then it'd defeat the purpose of calling it a "Triple Crown" anyways.

As far as the likes of J.B.L., The Big Show & John Cena. I doubt any one of the three would truly care if they were or weren't apart of that group of individuals, as they've still accomplished a great deal in their careers.

Good response Will, but I must counter you. If the Triple Crown is the WWF's original three belts, then why are the World Heavyweight Championship on RAW and the new in 2002 WWE Tag Team Belts apart of the Triple Crown and not the US title. Triple Crown is already defeating the purpose by having 5 different belts count towards Triple Crown status so why not just add the US title to the equation. I know the wrestlers, Cena, JBL and Big Show obviously don't care, but it's not about the wrestlers, it's about making logical sense as you stated. If there are two different World and Tag Team titles that can be won to be Triple Crown, then there should be two middle tier titles, so the US title should join the IC title as another secondary tier title for the Triple Crown. Otherwise, if the Triple Crown is just the three Original WWF titles you mentioned, then Punk didn't make history, as he only won the equivalent to the WWE/WWF title, the WHC title. For that matter, we then take out Benoit and Booker T cause they also only won the WHC, and Angle and Guerrero as they didn't win the original WWF tag belts but the newer later ones. I'm just saying, Logic only makes sense in how you apply it Will

I look forward to your rebuttal good Will

 

[CCS]

I honestly thought there was two ways to get the triple crown. Either get all three of RAW's titles or all three of Smackdown titles. But if you just want 1 triple crown then the obvious is The WWE title, Intercontinental, and World tag. Those are the most prestigious titles on all three levels. The united states title isnt as prestigious as the Intercontinental title so I'd leave it out. But personally I think the triple crown should just be


You have to have a world title (WWE,WHC,ECW)
You have to have a midcard title (USA,I-C)
You have to have a tag title (WWE,WTC)

 

[TheOneBigWill]

Good response Will, but I must counter you. If the Triple Crown is the WWF's original three belts, then why are the World Heavyweight Championship on RAW and the new in 2002 WWE Tag Team Belts apart of the Triple Crown and not the US title.

Simple fact is.. the World Heavyweight Title, (*cough* W.C.W. Championship *cough*) United States Title & Smackdown created Tag Team Championships should NOT count as being apart of the Triple Crown. The only reason the World title & Tag titles are, likely, is to simply boost some type of historical stat. (As seen w/ the recent Punk issue)

But in all fairness, it shouldn't count, as it's NOT apart of the original Triple Crown. The W.C.W. single's Championships, along with the 2002 Tag Team titles should be their own Triple Crown, though.

Triple Crown is already defeating the purpose by having 5 different belts count towards Triple Crown status so why not just add the US title to the equation. I know the wrestlers, Cena, JBL and Big Show obviously don't care, but it's not about the wrestlers, it's about making logical sense as you stated.

I believe the reason they'd consider the W.W.E. Championship & World Championship one in the same, is because they're both Heavyweight titles. Same with the Tag Team Championships. Whereas, ironically, the Intercontinental & United States Championships.. be them both mid-card titles, are actually not comparable in any other way but that.

One holds a reign over all continents. The other, simply over the U.S. Or it's to have you believe. Tag titles are what they are. The Heavyweight titles are what they are. But the U.S. & I.C. are slightly different by name, which makes them different by part.

If there are two different World and Tag Team titles that can be won to be Triple Crown, then there should be two middle tier titles, so the US title should join the IC title as another secondary tier title for the Triple Crown.

I agree that if the World & Tag titles can be joined with the W.W.E. & World Tag titles, then yes.. the U.S. & Intercontinental titles may very well just unify and conjoin themselves. But I also get why they wouldn't.

And as I said before, I think only the original 3 should be the Triple Crown and the only reason the other two have been added is purely so they could add in the extra smaller names (Benoit, Booker T., C.M. Punk) to make them seem like they're more important.

Otherwise, if the Triple Crown is just the three Original WWF titles you mentioned, then Punk didn't make history, as he only won the equivalent to the WWE/WWF title, the WHC title. For that matter, we then take out Benoit and Booker T cause they also only won the WHC, and Angle and Guerrero as they didn't win the original WWF tag belts but the newer later ones.

See, that's exactly correct. C.M. Punk did NOT make history. They're claiming he's the new "fastest" individual to do it, but if you look at who the second fastest is (Kevin Nash) you'll see why they were quick to want to replace that. They don't want someone in the "other" company, to be a top guy in one of their historical marks.

Tie that in with them desperately trying to do anything to make C.M. Punk seem important, and by this time next year I wouldn't doubt if he'd somehow become the quickest person to win something else.

Punk's victories in Championships are vastly becoming utterly meaningless, especially now that it's clear they're only to set new records, to erase old ones they (W.W.E.) no longer want at the top.

I'm just saying, Logic only makes sense in how you apply it Will

I look forward to your rebuttal good Will

Logic and the World Wrestling Entertainment don't have any business being mixed into the same sentence, unless it's something like..

"W.W.E. doesn't hold any logic to it."

Again.. I think only the original Triple Crown should stand. If that means erasing guys like Chris Benoit, Booker T. and others.. so be it.

 

[Canadian Knight]

It is a hard thing to say, but I think what they should do is consider the Tags, Championship, and the IC as the Triple Crown. Now maybe we can have the US Belt replace the IC, but none of the others. Meaning that a person can't be a Triple Crown if he takes the IC, US, and Tag. But he can be if he took the US (or IC), Tag, and the Championship.

 

[Mr. TM]

I whole heartedly accept your proposal Showtime and was going to bring this up in CM Punk thread. I also agree with you about your Grand Slam Idea. In reality, the ECW title is worth about as much now as the IC title meant back when there was the European title. It is a little strange, but when they look at grand slam champions, make the ECW comparable to the European title. Then make the IC and the US title equal. That would make a lot of new Triple Crown champions, and also open up the chance for GrandSlam champions.

 

[klunderbunker]

I think if you want to make SD's titles it's own triple crown then sure. I mean at the end of it all does which world, midcard and tag titles you win really make a differece? Not to me it doesn't. But when you start going around to different shows to determine what belts you've accumulated for a crown like that, why bother? If that's the case, do we count WCW US title reigns? What about the ECW Title? Is that a world title? Obviously not, so just leave it as it is.

 

[pun2003hh]

Eh, I have to disagree with most of you. Though the original WWE Triple Crown is in fact the WWE, IC, and World Tag, the times have changed. WWE is no longer a singular roster. WWE is now two distinct brands that are complimented by a supplementary brand (ECW). In that change, how do you not accept the change in the title structure. The triple crown has to be seen now as A championship in 3 seperate tiers. There are two top tier championships, two mid card championships, and two tag team championships. (I do not consider the ECW title in this category because it is a secondary brand. ECW is only in place to compliment Raw and Smackdown. There cant be any denying that ECW is a step about FCW)

No matter the lack of luster that surrounds the US Championship, the bottom line is it IS the mid card title on Smackdown. Its sole purpose of creation was to create an equivalent of the IC Championship for the Smackdown brand. My other point of reasoning is this. Lets say down the road they decide to re-merge the rosters and unify all of the titles. If this is done, you wouldnt consider Edge a 3 time WHC and a 3 time WWE Champion, you would consider him a 6 time world champion. The same would go with the mid card titles. Bottom line, if a title can logically be merged with another title, then they have equal value. If they have equal value, then they should both count toward a triple crown.

 

[Savage1]

I agree that it should be relegated to a top tier (WHC, WWE), mid-card(IC,US), and tag team title. Kinda off topic but I am still really pissed that WWE replaced the WCW version of the US title with the hideously kiddie colorful version they currently use. I am a firm believer in the "better the belt looks the more it means" clause...which I possibly just made up! Bring back the WCW version...to me the new version is worse than any tv title or cruiserweight title ever used!

 

[Slyfox696]

I think just about everyone in here is wrong.

The Triple Crown should consist of three titles; the ECW World Title, the Smackdown World Title, and finally, the Raw World Title. After all, isn't that the whole point?

Is not the whole point of a Triple Crown to be the best at three different areas? When you think of baseball's Triple Crown, it isn't about having the best BA, 7th in HRs, and 19th in RBI's. In horse racing, the point is to be the best at three different races. The whole point is to be the BEST.

So, by capturing all three World Titles is what makes one a Triple Crown winner. But, for you people who refuse to understand that Triple Crown should be about the best, and instead contend it should be about working your way up, then my policy suits you as well. ECW is the "C" show, Smackdown is the "B" show, and Raw is the "A" show. To be Triple Crown, you have to win the three different levels as well.

Sometimes I am so intelligent I amaze myself. And sometimes people's inability to think for themselves bothers me.

 

[Darkshot77]

There is a reason the US title is not considered and the WHC is. The WHC is a WWE made belt in the style of a WCW belt, not the same belt, the line of champions is broken. The line of US champions from the NWA to WCW to WWE has never been broken, It is the same excat title. because the title was not created by the WWE it cannot be apart of the WWE Triple crown. Plain and simple end of story.

 

[Azrael Cain]

I think Darkshot is on to something here...

The idea of a Triple Crown is that they make up the core titles of a promotion -- in this case the WWF. The three main titles of the WWF have always been, and always will be: World, Intercontinental and Tag Team. Regardless of roster splits or brands, those three are the requirements of entering the exclusive club of Triple Crown Champions.

The TCC is a hell of an honor for a wrestler, in my opinion, and must be difficult to get to so as not to cheapen the value of such an accomplishment.

The United States Title in its roots is a core WCW Title. It also has NWA history behind it, not WWF history. So the WWF cannot historically consider it one of its core titles, and therefore cannot include it in the Triple Crown Championship requirements.

I think if the WWE could, it would've done so a long time ago.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

Essentially, the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships are equal, even if the WWE title might have a tiny bit more clout. The tag team championships are DEFINITELY equal. And the IC and US titles are equal. So why not?

If you say the US title isn't, then you by default have to say the WHC and the WWE tag team championship titles aren't equal to the others, because that would make Smackdown's triple crown. And then if you do that, then that means Smackdown isn't equal to Raw, and means pretty much nothing to the WWE. WWE wants (and should want) Raw and Smackdown to be equal, so in order to do that, they need to make their titles equal. So you need to have both sets be equal.

Here's the three scenarios you can have:

SCENARIO 1: Even though I think it would be foolish to do so, if they would end the brand split and just have 3 titles (WWE, IC, Tag Team), then those three would make up the triple crown and that would be it. Then you add another title (TV title maybe) that doesn't limit which people can go for it (like the Cruiserweight title does) and make that the 4th title that rounds out the Grand Slam definition.

SCENARIO 2: You differentiate between the triple crowns. First, to do this, you have to keep the same titles on the same brand at all times. No switching. IC title would have to stay on Raw, US title would have to stay on Smackdown, tag titles stay on those sides like they are, and that's it. If you have the draft, and you draft the IC champion over to Smackdown, then that champion has to give up his title and have a match with the current US champion on Smackdown to make a definitive midcard title holder. Then, if you do this, and you've got the titles secured onto one brand, they can give two different types of triple crown notoriety. For instance, CM Punk has held the World Heavyweight Championship (which is currently on Raw...even though I think it works better on Smackdown), as well as Raw's tag team title and Raw's midcard title. So in the record books, he would be a Raw Triple Crown Champion. If he didn't win the IC title, but he won the US title, he WOULDN'T be a triple crown champion, because he won 2 from Raw and 1 from Smackdown. Likewise, Carlito has won Smackdown's tag team championship, Smackdown's midcard title (US title), and if he won the WWE title, he'd be a Smackdown Triple Crown Champion. But if he won the World Heavyweight Championship instead, he wouldn't be a TCC.

SCENARIO 3: Just allow the US title to count the same as the IC title, just as both tag titles are equal and both world titles are equal. Simple. Why does the US title not mean the same as the IC title if the rest of the titles mean the same as their equivalents? It just doesn't make any sense.


I can understand the WWE not wanting certain people to be a part of the triple crown of their company due to the US title not being one of their original titles, so they had no control over who won it, but really, look at the list. Who would suddenly become a Triple Crown champion in the WWE if they added it:

A. John Cena - Since when would they have beef with their poster boy?
B. JBL - Obviously they have no problem with him after all his lack of worth.
C. Big Show - If they have a problem with him, I'd be surprised.

That's it. These are three guys that are liked! Its not even like adding the US title into the mix would make it so suddenly Randy Savage and Jeff Jarrett and other guys that Vine dislikes would suddenly obtain status in the WWE. Its just three guys that the WWE likes!

 

[Jane]

I don't see why not. At this point the IC title is worth nothing, and I almost feel as if the US title is passing it in value. They might as well include it, but I don't see how they can. The WWE doesn't put much attention on Triple Crowns, so I doubt one day they will say "Guess what? Now John Cena is Triple Crown!" They could just state something about it on WWE.com, but I don't think so. I mean, both world titles and tag titles are included, and the tag titles are worth nothing, why shouldn't the US be? Not that it makes much of a differance. There are so many Triple Crowns now the point of even being one is definitely decreasing.

 

[650ballinwhiteboy]

Yeah It definately should count. The US Title is pretty much equal to the IC title as is the WHC to the WWE and the World TT and the WWE TT so why wouldn't it

To achieve Triple Crown
Top Tier(WWE, WHC)
MId-Tier(IC, US)
TAg(WWE,WOrld

for NEW Grand Slam
add the ECW title
that would make CM Punk New GS in like a year and a half

 

[Mr. Slave]

Yes since it means more than the IC title IMO, and I think the USA title has put alot of mid-cards to main eventers, so its deserved.