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?
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?