Grand Slam Champion

[Defekt]

For a long time, the accepted definition of a grand slam champion was someone who had won the European, Intercontinental, tag-team, and world championships.

After the brand extension, the WWE indicated that the WHC and World Tag titles were acceptable substitutes.

When JBL won the US title he referred to himself as a grand slam champion, but the WWE never confirmed this.

Now looking at the Wikipedia article on the subject, it seems someone found a 10 year old article from wwe.com that described Kane as a grand slam champion based on his Hardcore title win.

I always looked at Grand Slam status as the ultimate achievement, and wish the WWE would formerly clarify the qualifications. I also think the requirements should be updated to reflect the current belts.

As it is, only a hand full of people are still eligible for the title, and under the current assumed requirements, it's doubtful there will ever be another grand slam champion.

How should the WWE define a grand slam champion going forward?
How do you currently define a grand slam champion?

 

[HBKperfect23]

Tag Team, United States/European, IC, World/WWE would be how I would define it.

I guess grand slam wouldnt be the ultimate achievement anymore. Maybe winning the World and WWE title would be reaching that level. With all the belts and constant changes it really is hard to give credibility to winning both.

 

[#hamler]

The definition of a Grand Slam Champion in the WWE seems to change too often for my following. With that said, A Grand Slam Champion should be as follows, a former World Champion - holding the WWE or World Championship, Mid-card Championship - Intercontinental or United States Championship and the Tag Team Championship. A grandslam is hitting it big. Holding all the major Championships available should qualify you as a Grand Slam Champion. The Hardcore Title, European and Cruiserweight should mean nothing as they were hardly relevant throughout most of their history.

 

[havenstorm]

I agree with Hamler except that there is always usually a "pulp" title as I call it. A popular yet ultimately fairly meaningless title in the grand scheme of things. At one time they even tried to give somewhat of a credible status to the Million Dollar Championship. I would only include a Euro or Hardcore Championship if it was during an extended year period where it had alot of viable contenders. Both the Euro and Hardcore titles fall under these but only for certain time periods and WWE should clarify when those years included. The Cruiserweight title I wouldn't consider at all because it excludes everyone except Cruiserweight and you wouldn't include the Women's Championship or Divas title so that one shouldn't be either. If a title came about that after a year or so was contended for by alot of various contenders and became a part of the WWE Universe's culture even if it was only for a few years or so and then it fell by the wayside then for those few years it was considered important enough for wrestler's to vie for then it should be considered. Don't think so? Then tell someone like Eddie Guerrero if he were still alive that the Euro title shouldn't be considered. He won it at a Wrestlemania. So for that time and the time it was relevant, yes it should be considered. But the E needs to put these titles on tiers of importance and then the times they were and then a better list of who qualifies and who shouldn't can be made. Also keep in mind that if this were to be then until a REAL list of titles and years was formally done then any list like would be debatable and ultimately really meaningless because also for a time the ECW Championship was contended as a "World Championship" and if that is the case then Matt Hardy (Train Wreck version 2.7) would be considered a Grand Slam Champion then. So it's all subjective until the E (or something that would be considered a credible source that might be interested in such an undertaking such as PWI magazine) formally makes a real list with dates and titles.

 

[Nate DaMac]

The definition of a Grand Slam Champion in the WWE seems to change too often for my following. With that said, A Grand Slam Champion should be as follows, a former World Champion - holding the WWE or World Championship, Mid-card Championship - Intercontinental or United States Championship and the Tag Team Championship. A grandslam is hitting it big. Holding all the major Championships available should qualify you as a Grand Slam Champion. The Hardcore Title, European and Cruiserweight should mean nothing as they were hardly relevant throughout most of their history.

You're not thinking of it the same way. What you just named was a Triple Crown Champion, similar to when a Baseball Player wins the HR, RBI, and BA. A Grand Slam would be win someone hits a Homer that drives home 4 runs. Fuck I can't believe I'm talking about Baseball.

Anyway, there are already tons of Triple Crown Champs in WWE but there are significantly less Grand Slam Champs. I think Taker is the only one who can still become one since the Hardcore and European titles are gone. That adds a little more to it for me. There will probably never stop being Triple Crown Champs but the Grand Slam challenge is pretty much gone.

 

[HitmanRicks]

When Shawn Michaels became the European Champion and became known as the first-ever Grand Slam Champion, he was called that because he had won "every title the WWF had to offer." At the time, the only titles were the WWF World Heavyweight, Intercontinental, Tag Team, and European Titles.

However, over the years the qualifications have changed quite a bit, and from what I can gather, they are currently something like this. The wrestler must have had at least one reign with...

- WWE/F or World Heavyweight Title
- Intercontinental Title
- WWE or World Tag Team Title
- European or Hardcore Title

The United States Title has yet to be considered on par with the Intercontinental Championship, both for Grand Slam and Triple Crown contendership.

On the current WWE roster, there are only 6 men that can qualify to become future Grand Slam Champions by the current criteria.

- The Undertaker and The Big Show need the Intercontinental Title
- Goldust and William Regal need the WWE or World Heavyweight Title
- Mark Henry needs the Intercontinental and Tag Team Titles
- If his past as K-Kwik is taken into account (since he won the Hardcore Title then), Truth would need the remaining 3 titles.

However, if the United States Title is one day considered a substitute for the Intercontinental Title, men such as John Cena and The Big Show will gain Grand Slam Champion status.

 

[Aquaman6686]

The official criteria for winning the Grand Slam is WWE/World Heavyweight Championship, Intercontinental Championship, European/Hardcore Championship, and World/WWE Tag Team Championship. I agree that the United States Championship should be an acceptable substitue for the Intercontinental Championship, but it's not.

 

[justinept]

The Hardcore Title, European and Cruiserweight should mean nothing as they were hardly relevant throughout most of their history.

Well, most would say the same thing for the IC and US Title over the past 6-7 years. While those titles used to be a stepping stone toward the WWE Title scene, they're now just place holder titles, props if you will.

In terms of what constitutes a Grand Slam Champion - Well, nothing. And nothing really should.There are FIVE major titles in the WWE right now - WWE Title, World Title, IC Title, US Title, Tag Titles. Because of that, there's no reason to clarify a Grand Slam Champion anymore. In today's climate, being a Grand Slam Champion wouldn't even mean you've won every belt in the company.

----------

I - along with most on this board - remember a time when it was a big deal to win the Triple Crown - the WWF, IC and Tag Titles. I believe Bret Hart was the first to do it. He was followed by Diesel (who did it in one year) and then by Shawn Michaels.

Here's the kicker - and the reason why the Grand Slam distinction NEVER meant anything to me.

On September 22, 1997, Vince McMahon informed Bret Hart that he wouldn't honor his contract, and advised him to negotiate with WCW.

On September 27, 1997, Shawn Michaels - while holding the WWF Title - won the European Championship to become the first Grand Slam winner in WWF history. Since he was holding the WWF Title, Michaels only defended the Euro Title one friggin time in two months - and instead of defending it in that match, he simply laid down so Triple H could take the belt from him.

In my estimation - Shawn only won the Euro Title so that the WWF no longer had to refer to the other two Triple Crown winners (Hart, Nash) ... and could simply refer to Shawn as the only Grand Slam Champion in WWF history. The WWF's attempt to re-write its own history completely ruined the Euro belt and the honor for me.

 

[HBKistheHOF]

Between WCW being sold to WWE and the Brand Extension the European, Hardcore and WCW U.S. titles were unified to make the United Stated Championship. So Kane and JBL's claims are correct.

The requirments have alwats been the same, a Grand Slam champion is someone who has won a World title, Tag Title, the I.C. and a minor title ex. Hardcore, European, U.S. etc. (They have always counted I.C. title seperate and not just a minor title due to prestige, stepping stone to get there and the whole idea of being a grand slam champ is too win "every title" aka. more than one minor and not just the I.C. plus the world and tag championships.)

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

How should the WWE define a grand slam champion going forward?

The real reason that it is tricky to tell, is that WWE never published an updated system after they merged all of WCW's titles into their own collection. All you need for a Triple Crown win is a Primary, Secondary, and Tag win. WWE and WCW used to have their own list, with the IC and US titles as the secondary belts, respectively. Now that WWE owns both sets of belts, I would think they are only the same platform as one another. Being both a IC and US champion should not qualify you for a Tertiary win.

To be a Grand Slam champ you need a Tertiary win. In the past that came in the form of the European title or the Hardcore title. I want to say the Cruiserweight title counts as well, but we don't know because like I said they failed to update things after they bought out WCW. If that is the case, Rey Mysterio should be a Grand Slam Champion (World, Tag, IC, Cruiserweight).

The hardest part is that WWE doesn't HAVE a tertiary championship. They got rid of the Hardocre, Cruiserweight, and European titles. I honestly don't think the US and IC titles should be considered different. They are both mid-card, both secondary titles...I don't know. If you want to go by that, many more people should be Grand Slam champs at this point then! Dolph Ziggler IS in the record books. Despite that title win if you want, but both by WWE.com and Wikipedia he is a World Champion, and a Triple Crown Champion. If we were to say the IC and US both count, that makes him a Grand Slam winner.

I'm not ok with awarding a bunch of people the Grand Slam title just for the hell of it. I'd rather say nobody can get it, because there is no tertiary. They'll just have to settle with being a Triple Crown winner. Better to close it off now, and exclude people, than to kill it's legacy by letting everyone in. Especially since titles fly around like hot cakes these days.

 

[Azane]

Current grand slam champion should require;
Tag Team
IC and US
WWE and WHC

Since that would include every title minus the Durpa Diva's title.

The reason it's not going to happen often, is that people move up or down too fast to last in the mid or world title scene long enough to get them all.

Someone like Cena has all but the IC, RKO has all but the US (I think).

Another definition that fits the term grand slam better is holding 4 major titles, which would be a little more realistic, but adds a lot to the list.

In the end, the definition is whatever someone personally does, for me, I'm actually considering 4/5 major titles as grand slam in my head, since getting both midcard, and both world titles isn't very viable.

 

[vampirek]

I'll use HBK's defintion of the Grand Slam Champion and keep it like that. That means to be a Grand Slam Champion now you must have held all the titles currently going (WWE, WHC, IC, US, Tag Team). Which on the roster makes no one a Grand Slam champion of this era, although some are close to it: (Edge would be considered a Grand Slam Champion as the US title carries through with its history)

Big Show would need the IC title, as would Cena
Kane would need the US title, as would Triple H, Punk and Orton
Booker T would need the WWE title.

The only questionable thing in all this would be the tag titles and whether they are now default, meaning the above have to win it again.

 

[Trill Co$by]

The definition of a Grand Slam Champion in the WWE seems to change too often for my following. With that said, A Grand Slam Champion should be as follows, a former World Champion - holding the WWE or World Championship, Mid-card Championship - Intercontinental or United States Championship and the Tag Team Championship. A grandslam is hitting it big. Holding all the major Championships available should qualify you as a Grand Slam Champion. The Hardcore Title, European and Cruiserweight should mean nothing as they were hardly relevant throughout most of their history.

Sorry to burst your bubble but two base hits and one home run isn't a grandslam, it's just bringing two men home.

And that's what the Grandslam championship "title" is meant for. When you secure a World title, a Mid-card Title, a Tag Title, and a fourth title. Honestly, I would consider The Miz to be a triple crown champion, since the US title is just as prestigious as the IC title, but that's just me.

Furthermore, I would absolutely love it if WWE would update the title requirements list. IMO, I would have it be like this.

World Title Tier
-WWE
-WHC
-ECW (Yes, ECW. Commentators still referred to is as a World title, thus I'm counting it.)

Mid-Card Title Tier
-IC
-US

Tag Title Tier
-World Tag
-WWE Tag
-(Unified) WWE Tag

Third Level Title Tier
-European
-Hardcore
-Lightweight
-Cruiserweight
-Any other title not mentioned (like WCW Television)

---

Again, that's my personal opinion because it makes sense to me. Why would someone choose the US title on Raw over the IC title on Smackdown if they're not qualified for even a triple crown or grandslam honor?

 

[JP317]

Here's the kicker - and the reason why the Grand Slam distinction NEVER meant anything to me.

On September 22, 1997, Vince McMahon informed Bret Hart that he wouldn't honor his contract, and advised him to negotiate with WCW.

On September 27, 1997, Shawn Michaels - while holding the WWF Title - won the European Championship to become the first Grand Slam winner in WWF history. Since he was holding the WWF Title, Michaels only defended the Euro Title one friggin time in two months - and instead of defending it in that match, he simply laid down so Triple H could take the belt from him.

In my estimation - Shawn only won the Euro Title so that the WWF no longer had to refer to the other two Triple Crown winners (Hart, Nash) ... and could simply refer to Shawn as the only Grand Slam Champion in WWF history. The WWF's attempt to re-write its own history completely ruined the Euro belt and the honor for me.

I hate to jump into correction mode but September 27, 1997 Bret was the champion, I don't want to sound like a douche but why would anyone think Shawn was champ I mean the Montreal Screwjob would never have happened if Shawn was champ as a double DQ would've done the job.

Anyway I guess a main, second, third and tag will do by today's standards granted there are no thirds any more so maybe main, both secondarys and the tag, heck things lose meaning over time and grand slam did right after Jericho became Undisputed champion and the third one I think, no wait forth Angle was third, right?

 

[Canadian_SXE]

If you wanna be fair I don't know why they don't count Chris Jericho or Jeff Hardy as holding every single title. Jericho has been World champ, Tag champ, IC champ, Euro champ, hardcore champ, and due to the acquisition of WCW cruiserweight champ. Hardy has been World champ, Tag champ, IC champ, Euro champ, Hardcore champ, Light Heavweight champ. Even JBL has been World champ, Tag champ, IC champ, US champ, Euro champ, and Hardcore champ. That is far more impressive than just winning 4 titles when you when 6 or 7 different titles.

 

[lowandmighty]

I always thought it was anyone who had won 4 career titles including the world title. I don't see how the u.s title is as prestigious as the intercontinental championship. Just by the names of them for example the united states champion is just champion of the united states whereas the intercontinental champion is champion of all of north America.

Anyway I went off topic. The term grandslam gets thrown around too much if you ask me for example in tennis winning a grandslam title is to win either the Australian open, The french open, Wimbledon or the U.S open but to win THE grandslam you have to have won all of them in a row in any order. or you can have a career grand slam and win all those tournaments over a whole career. But People who have only won 1 of these tournaments like Andy Roddick are still called grandslam champions. So by that logic I stick by having won 4 titles in wwe including a world title is a grandslam in wrestling and all titles would still have to count regardless of whether they're still in contention or not like the european championship and the light heavyweight championship.

 

[xxxdaniel_ariesxxx]

In my view the only true "grand-slam champion" that means anything in WWE is Edge. He won both World Titles (WWE and World Heavyweight Championship), both secondary, or Mid-Card Titles (Intercontinental and United States) and both All three versions of the Tag Titles (WWF/World, WWE and Unified) plus he won The King of the Ring (back when it actually meant something) as well as the Royal Rumble... but if you are going as just championships that originated in WWE than Jeff Hardy would be the only real WWE grand slam champion, because he is the only one to have won the WWE, Intercontinental, European, Tag Team, Hardcore and Light-Heavyweight championships in his career.

 

[xxxdaniel_ariesxxx]

I - along with most on this board - remember a time when it was a big deal to win the Triple Crown - the WWF, IC and Tag Titles. I believe Bret Hart was the first to do it. He was followed by Diesel (who did it in one year) and then by Shawn Michaels.

PEDRO MORALES IN 1980!!!

I understand that it was before you were probably born, because it was before I was even born, but there is a history prior to Hulkamania and Vince McMahon buying his fathers company. The reason that The Triple Crown was so impressive was that prior to the introduction of the European Championship in 1997 there had only been three male championships in the WWF for the last 18 years, Championships didn't change hands as much as they do today, and in that time only four people had been able to win all three. So, the combination of so few championships and so few people to have held them made the fact that someone who had held all three all that much more impressive.

And Michaels winning the European Championship wasn't a way to "erase" or down play Hart or Diesel/Nash, it was a way of getting heat on a top heel in a new PPV market, by having Michaels screw Bulldog in the UK, and it worked.

 

[Defekt]

but if you are going as just championships that originated in WWE than Jeff Hardy would be the only real WWE grand slam champion, because he is the only one to have won the WWE, Intercontinental, European, Tag Team, Hardcore and Light-Heavyweight championships in his career.

Well if you wanna look at it that way, you'd have to at least also count Jericho. He won the WHC, WWE Title, Intercontinental, European, both tag titles, Hardcore, and the Cruiserweight title.

 

[xxxdaniel_ariesxxx]

Well if you wanna look at it that way, you'd have to at least also count Jericho. He won the WHC, WWE Title, Intercontinental, European, both tag titles, Hardcore, and the Cruiserweight title.

I wasn't aware that the WCW Cruiserweight championship originated in WWE... I did say titles that ORIGINATED in WWE and Jericho never held either the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship, or even the WWE version of the Cruiserweight Championship for that matter.

 

[Canadian_SXE]

I always thought it was anyone who had won 4 career titles including the world title. I don't see how the u.s title is as prestigious as the intercontinental championship. Just by the names of them for example the united states champion is just champion of the united states whereas the intercontinental champion is champion of all of north America.

Anyway I went off topic. The term grandslam gets thrown around too much if you ask me for example in tennis winning a grandslam title is to win either the Australian open, The french open, Wimbledon or the U.S open but to win THE grandslam you have to have won all of them in a row in any order. or you can have a career grand slam and win all those tournaments over a whole career. But People who have only won 1 of these tournaments like Andy Roddick are still called grandslam champions. So by that logic I stick by having won 4 titles in wwe including a world title is a grandslam in wrestling and all titles would still have to count regardless of whether they're still in contention or not like the european championship and the light heavyweight championship.

Actually the intercontinental champion means you represent all 7 continents. Hence why it is called intercontinental title. it is similar to titles that are called international as it represents all nations. And both are exactly worded like the world title, as a world title you are representing the entire world which would include a 7 continenents and every nation.

 

[xxxdaniel_ariesxxx]

Actually the intercontinental champion means you represent all 7 continents. Hence why it is called intercontinental title.

Actually The Intercontinental Championship represented the unification of the WWF North American Championship, Held by Pat Paterson, and the [imaginary] "WWF South American Championship" in a [equally imaginary] "tournament in Rio de Janeiro". Thus the "Intercontinental" means that it represents both the North and South American continents. Wouldn't the World Title be the one that represent all seven continents?

I think that it was WWF's way of creating a title that seemed more prestigious than the NWA United States Championship. For all intents and perposes they really just renamed the North American Championship, that's why a lot of people say that Ted Dibiase is the *real* "first Intercontinental Champion" because he was the first WWF North American Champion.

 

[lowandmighty]

Well there you go Canadian_SXE and xxxdaniel_ariesxxx just clarified that the u.s title isn't actually in the same class as the intercontinental championship. I think xxxdaniel_ariesxxx's explanation is more on the money though.
I don't know what it has to do with the topic but yeah. I guess it just means the I.C title is more realistically part of a grand slam then. Because of this I've changed my opinion of what a grand slam traditionally should be and again using the example I did with the tennis the 4 titles should be the most prestigious ones so a grand slam should probably be having won the wwe title, the world heavyweight title, the intercontinental championship and the tag team championships but champions of the past who held lots of titles that aren't in contention anymore should still be recognised as different eras can't be compared. For any new grand slam champions to be crowned they should have won those belts though. I think Kane would surely count anyway.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

If you hold the Intercontinental, US, WWE and WHC for me, those are enough credentials to be deemed a grand slam campion. And if you put people in those brackets very few will actually get into that group.

I think Ziggler is on his way to becaome a Grand Slam Champion if said is followed, and I think it would be the bets definition in this day and age.

 

[King Patrick Star]

I, personally, define a Grand Slam Champion to be a SuperStar who won:
Tag Team Title – WWE / World Tag Team Championship
3rd Tier (Lower Card) Title – European / Hardcore Championship
2nd Tier (Mid-Card) Title – Intercontinental / United States Championship
1st Tier (Main Event) Title – WWE / World Championship

Now, I know the US Title is not officially recognized by the WWE as being a part of the WWE Grand Slam, but then again, I, myself, recognize Jericho’s first WWE Title win over Triple H on 04-17-2000. Do the math.