Talk:Triple Crown Championship/ECW

ECW Triple Crown

RVD is a ECW Triple Crown. The current version of the ECW World Championship DOES count as part of the ECW Triple Crown. The ECW Triple Crown just means winning the ECW World Title, ECW TV Title, and ECW Tag Team Titles, and the current incarnation of the ECW Title DOES count towards it. Lrrr IV 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Look through the archives. 声援 -- The Hybrid 22:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really, someone said the current ECW Title should be part of the ECW triple crown and you said no. It's the same title as before, and IS part of the ECW triple crown. End of story, I would change it myself but my account is too new to edit semi-protected pages. WWE can do what they want with the titles and the current titles/champions count the same as anybody who held the belt from 1993-2001. Lrrr IV 00:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the ECW TC is from the Independent Promotion, not the WWE Brand. It does not count, as they are 2 completely different companies. End of story. 声援 -- The Hybrid 00:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The ECW TC is winning all three of the ECW Titles, whether they were part of the promotion or the brand, end of story. Actually, the ECW section shouldn't even be listed at all since ECW never referred to it as a triple crown. Lrrr IV 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Lrrr IV, find a source. Darrenhusted 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For what, ECW not having a triple crown? Or Hybrid trying to keep RVD from being listed here? There has been no evidence provided that the ECW Title no longer counts towards the ECW Triple Crown (the entire ECW section could be removed as original research since there was never officially a TC). Just because a title changes promotions doesn't stop it from being counted towards records, and the ECW reigns since June 2006 count the same as ECW reigns from 1993-2001. Unless Hybrid can provide some evidence from WWE or PWI, his opinion on this carries no more weight than mine or anyone else (maybe even less since there is no logical reason to stop counting it). Lrrr IV 02:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Find a source for the current ECW heavyweight title being the same as the Indy ECW title. The ECW "triple crown" is now historic, much like the WCW "triple crown" is historic and the AWA "triple crown" is historic. The fact that none of those promotions never used the term Triple Crown does not mean we have to remove the ECW section, but it does mean you have to stop adding RVD, so for what I hope is the last time he is not a ECW triple crown holder. Do you understand the other point of view on this? Darrenhusted 02:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no WCW Triple Crown, let's get that out of the way. I haven't seen any source that says the ECW Title ISN'T the same, sources saying it's the same title: WWE.com and Wrestling-Titles.com among others. The ECW Title is still active, meaning the ECW TC is still active. I have provided evidence supporting my side, no one has provided evidence opposing me. I haven't added RVD in yet (I can't because my account is too new), but I hope someone else does. Rob Van Dam is a ECW TV champion, there is no denying that (except by fanboys who want to pretend that the titles died in 2001). Lrrr IV 02:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about a continuation of the titles. The original ECW promotion died in 2001. Whether or not this title is a continuation of the original is irrelevant. You can't earn a TC for a promotion that doesn't exist anymore. That's just stupid. Also, after your account is old enough to add RVD you'll get reverted anyway if there isn't a consensus, meaning that there will be an edit war involving you against 2 other users. You'll get yourself blocked for the WP:3RR faster than you can say PINECONE. 声援 -- The Hybrid 05:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The ECW section shouldn't be even listed at all since it is original research, which is not allowed. Before you can argue against that, it's no different than you saying the current title doesn't count towards the TC (which doesn't exist). Saying it doesn't count is OR, and is just plain silly. Rob Van Dam is the 5th ECW TC, end of story (unless you can find something from WWE or PWI saying otherwise). Lrrr IV 05:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof falls on the person wanting to insert information into the article. Unless you provide proof that the new ECW Title counts, then nothing will be added. We don't have to prove that it doesn't, you have to prove that it does. I'm going to remove all mention of RVD so as not to be a hypocrite, but come up with a source for your side or stop entirely. 声援 -- The Hybrid 05:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Who said the burden of proof is on me? I already said there is no ECW TV at all, so of coarse I can't find proof. Just like there would be no proof of ANY of those ECW TC champs since the entire section is original research. This is one of those cases where either the entire section should be removed, or you "open the floodgate" and let anyone who wins all 3 titles be in. So the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that WWE/ECW/PWI ever considered there to be a ECW TC and not just something made up by fans. Lrrr IV 05:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has sources. You're asking to blank the entire page. 声援 -- The Hybrid 05:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No i'm not, and you know it. Both WWE and TNA have said many times they have a Triple Crown, so both have plenty of sources. There was never a ECW TC though, that is something made up by fans (and thus is original resarch and not allowed). Lrrr IV 06:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A TCC is simply a term used to describe someone who has won a World, Second Tier, and Tag Team title for a specific promotion. We don't treat the accomplishment as official unless the promotion honors it officially, as the WWE and TNA do. In the case of ECW and WCW, we do not treat it as official. We simply list the people who have pulled it off and nothing more. However, the definition I just gave you eliminates RVD from the ECW TC, as WWECW is a new promotion. 声援 -- The Hybrid 06:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have a source for that, it's all original research and should be tagged as such. To me, a TCC is someone who has won 3 specific titles (regardless of the promotion the belts are defended in). Rob Van Dam meets this requriement by winning all 3 ECW Titles in the ECW TC. Lrrr IV 06:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice the maintenance tag at the top of the article. The entire article doesn't link to any sources but the WWE's title history, so all of it is marked as OR. Most of this stuff is just determined by convention and/or consensus. I don't foresee this being any different. We'll probably end up having to take a poll on this issue, but as you have mentioned whatever happens is OR. Really the only reason I'm not deleting the section as you ask is because I don't want to deal with the backlash. It scares me. Most people want this section, and the guy who deletes it gets to deal with the complaining. 声援 -- The Hybrid 06:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I can link sources for WWE and TNA, the others can be deleted. I personally think the ECW section should be there, but only if RVD is included (otherwise it's a useless and incomplete section). Lrrr IV 06:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's take a step back here.

The ECW TC really did exist, as it was mentioned often by Joey Styles during the original run.

Now as far as RVD goes, it's like this:

Rob never won the title when ECW was an independant entity, he won it as part of WWE's ECW brand...apples and oranges.

It is the same title, because WWE purchased everything in ECW--lock, stock, and barrel. The Title however is WWE property now, so (in theory) it belongs in the WWE TC (from RVD on) as an equal to the WWE and World Titles. (That's a whole other arguement for another time.)

The same goes for the U.S. Title, While all former Champions are recognized, only the champs from Chris Kanyon on are eligible for the WWE TC as that is when the belt became WWE property. (All of this is under the pretense of the U.S. Belt becoming part of the TC...again another fight for another time.)

Bottom line...when a title becomes WWE property, it (in theory) becomes part of the WWE Triple Crown, it's earlier history (while recognized) belongs to it's previous incarnation.Ohgltxg 7:46 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have stated this before and i'll say it again, the ECW TC (not that it exists) continues to exist today. The current ECW Title DOES count towards the ECW TC. TJ Spyke 06:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Anothe thing, I don't think anywhere here can say Van Dam ISN'T a TC winner since that would be original research. The burden of proof is on you to find evidence that RVD isn't considered a ECW TC winner. TJ Spyke 06:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't prove a negative TJ. Find a source, and leave RVD off until you do. Otherwise it is OR. And I have no idea how you can say the ECW TC exists today when the TV and Tag titles don't exist. Darrenhusted 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, TC only exist within promotions. Let's look at it this way. ECW is a brand now, just like RAW, just like Smackdown. Therefore, as Ohg stated, it in theory is part of the WWE TC. ECW TC is for the actual promotion. How can RVD be considered an ECW TC if he won the ECW title in WWE? That's like saying someone who wins the WWE US Championship after having won previously the WCW Tag Team and Heavyweight Championship is a WCW Triple Crown. While the title may be the same and share the same lineage, it's a different promotion. The whole problem here is the ECW name. ECW TC champions can only have been champions in the promotion itself, not in the brand. The brand and the promotion are very different. Anakinjmt 14:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not a fact. A TC is winning a set of 3 titles, regardless of the promotion. Winning the WWE US Title would not count towards the WCW TV (which actually never existed) since it's no longer the WCW US Title. Darren, it's the same way someone can still win the WWE Grand Slam, it's just limited to people who have already won the ECW TV and ECW Tag Team Titles. It's OR to say RVD ISN'T a ECW TV champ. Of coarse, if no one provides prood that a ECW TV ever existed then the entire ECW section will be removed. TJ Spyke 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Joey Styles referred to a ECW Triple Crown during numerous broadcasts, so it's not original research. The question posed by Lrrr IV was whether or not RVD is a ECW TCC, and he is not. The OR tag is a smokescreen, the page should remain ECW TC, but RVD cannot be added until a verifiable source confirms that he is an ECW TCC, which his win last year does not make him. And if there is not currently an ECW TV title ot ECW Tag title then the entire of this argument discussion is balanced only on RVD. He is not an ECW TCC, and the ECW TC is not OR. Darrenhusted 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an actual source (i.e. something others can check)? Also, you may not consider RVD a TC champ but he IS. Winning a TC just means winning 3 specific titles, which Van Dam HAS. Pretending otherwise is ignorant, and the burden of proof is on you to show it does not count. He has won all three ECW Titles, making him a ECW TC winner (what promotion the titles exist in is irrelevent). TJ Spyke 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

ECW as an independent entity died on April 11, 2001. The final Champion under the old regime was Rhino. All of ECW's assets were then bought by WWE. When ECW was re-activated, it was done under the sanction of WWE. Thus, beginning with Rob Van Dam, all ECW World Champions are now under the WWE umbrella and not that of the old ECW. Same Championship, Different Promotion. RVD won the title as a WWE sanctioned belt, not as an ECW sanctioned belt. That is about the best way I can explain this. Ohgltxg 08:31 20 February, 2007 (UTC)

You nailed it, SAME CHAMPIONSHIP. Also (to whoever is doing it), stop removing the OR tag without providing proof. TJ Spyke 00:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

TJ, you seemed to have missed the point. Same championship, yes, the point was, DIFFERENT PROMOTION. You can't win one promotions TC in an entirely different promotion. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 00:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And no one has provided any proof to counter my arguement (or common sense). A TC is winning a set of 3 titles, it doesn't matter the promotion these titles are defended in. TJ Spyke 00:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does matter, a TC is winning a set of three titles under the umbrella of the same promotion, hence the names "WWE Triple Crown", "WCW Triple Crown", etc. Hence why US Champions don't qualify for the WCW Triple Crown. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 00:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Those refer to the titles, not the promotion. I don't think we are gonna be able to resolve this, neither side is providing any proof (only beliefs). Van Dam is a ECW TC winner, I know it's true but you don't believe it. Of coarse, the entire ECW section will be removed unless someone provides proof of it existig. TJ Spyke 01:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we're never going to agree, as unfortunate as that is, I can suggest that someone write to PWI and see if they can clear all this up. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 01:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If it'll help, think of it this way. In the ECW of old, it was simply the ECW World Heavyweight Championship. However, NOW, it would be the WWE ECW World Championship. Still called the ECW Championship, yes, but now WWE goes in front of it. It's obviously not referred to that on TV or on WWE.com or in magazines, but it's like calling the WHC the WWE WHC: it's not called that, but that's what it is, essentially. So, Rob Van Dam has won the ECW Tag Team title, the ECW Television title, and the WWE ECW World Championship. Two ECW promotion titles, one WWE title that shares the same name. Under this reasoning and logic, it is impossible for Van Dam to be an ECW TC, when he's only held two ECW titles and a WWE ECW title. ECW as a promotion is gone. It exists as a brand now under the WWE, and any other ECW titles that might be revived would be considered the same way: WWE ECW Television Champion, WWE ECW Tag Team Champion. I wish we could call Van Dam an ECW TC, but unless WWE or PWI or some other reliable source calls him an ECW TC, we have to go with our best guess, and under this reasoning, he's not. Anakinjmt 03:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WHAT? "WWE" is not part of the title name. They have NEVER referred to "WWE" in the name, nor is the WWE logo anywhere on the belt (whereas the WHC does have the WWE logo on it). I have presented clear cut evidence of why Van Damn would be a ECW TC champ if the ECW TC existed. TJ Spyke 00:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this page for a few days, and I've had to nominate the article for deletion. Find out why by clicking here Davnel03 17:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You have had to nominate it? Why? Because you don't agree with others. I suggest you put the Grand Slam article up for deletion as well then since that article flows from this one. Darrenhusted 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it won't be a major loss if it gets deleted. The whole thing is almost completely unsourced anyway. It could stand to be rewritten from the ground up, fact-by-fact. 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• If it looks like it will be deleted, I will put it on a subpage (so it's off of the mainspace) so that the info isn't lost. TJ Spyke 01:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you believe that these sources exist after all of the searching that has been done? That's like believing in faries. 声援 -- The Hybrid 05:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

RVD is an ECW Triple Crown Champion. According to definition, a Triple Crown winner is someone who won a World Title, a Secondary title, and a Tag Title. According to WWE.com, it lists all of RVD’s “Career Highlights", listing all of the titles he won. He is, by definition, a WWE Grand Slam Champion as well as an ECW Triple Crown Champion. It says: "Career Highlights: ECW World Champion, ECW Television Champion, ECW Tag Team Champion, WWE Champion, Intercontinental Champion, WWE World Tag Team Champion, WWE Tag Team Champion, European Champion, Hardcore Champion, unified the Intercontinental Championship with the Hardcore and European Championships". Right at the beginning it show his ECW titles with no mention of “WWE”/ECW World and “ECW”/ECW TV and “ECW”/ECW Tag titles. I don’t know how to insert a link, but here’s the web address: http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/superstars/rvd/profile/. Although, we know what it is, there is no “Official” listing of TCC or GSC or even any mention of it on all of the Superstars Career Highlights on their Bio pages in WWE.com. It’s all OR, but it all makes sense. Look at Chris Benoit’s page for example. He is clearly a WWE and WCW TCC and GSC. Does the WCW TV Title count toward a GSC in WCW?? Of course it does, logically, but not officially. Does it say he's a WWE/WCW TCC/GSC?? Not officially, but you know he is. It's Logic vs. Official. It’s Natural Law vs. Government Law. Comments anyone??--Prince Patrick 16:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A: WCW never HAD a TC, so that's a moot point. Plus, he never won the WCW championship OR the World Championship (as it was called when held by the Rock after Survivor Series '01). B: He can only be an ECW TC if he won it IN THE PROMOTION! It doesn't MATTER if there is now a brand called ECW; as huge ECW fans of old will be glad to tell you, ECW the BRAND and ECW the PROMOTION are VERY different. Title may be called the same, but he won the ECW title in WWE; therefore, he did not win the ECW PROMOTION TC. And that is what is in the article: the ECW promotion Triple Crown. Not the overall organizations called ECW triple crown, the ECW promotion triple crown. And, if you looked on a contract for the original ECW title, it's legal name would be the ECW World Heavyweight Championship; look at it now in WWE, and it'd be the WWE ECW World Championship. They don't call it that, as it would sound ridiculous, but legally, that's what it's called. Same with the WHC: its legal name is the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Anakinjmt 20:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a comment for you, Prince Patrick. Find the part on his bio where it state the following "Rob Van Dam is an ECW Triple Crown Champion" then there will be no further discussion. He fits the established parameters for a WWE Triple Crown/Grand Slam champion. There are sources which verify that for other wrestler and Van Dam has won those same titles. There is no such support for the ECW TC, unless it says so on his WWE.com bio. And if it doesn't say then accept your own source and stop trying to push this. Darrenhusted 00:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess you’re officially right. It doesn't really matter to me. I know what he accomplished, promotion or brand. The point I'm making is it doesn’t say, ECW Tag Team Champion, ECW TV Champion, and “WWE” ECW Champion, it just says ECW Champion. WWE doesn’t have an official listing of TCC or GSC, but you’re right, for now, just like some of you people WERE right about the WCW/World Heavyweight Title being "separate". I'll just wait till the WWE proves me right...again.--Prince Patrick 14:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I know everyone here thinks they're right, but let me bring up a few points that should clear this up. The current ECW World Championship is the exact same championship as the old ECW World Heavyweight Championship. All source that can be found will confirm that. Championship history goes Rhino then RVD. Now, that being said, just because the name of the title changed does not make it a new title. It's the same title. Rob Van Dam has held the ECW World (Heavyweight) Championship, the ECW Television Championship, and the ECW Tag Team Championship. That makes him an ECW Triple Crown Winner. Now, some of you are saying that different promotion makes a difference. Allow me to point out another section on this page which will dispute every claim that is based on that theory. Under TNA Triple Crown Potential Champions, it says Shane Douglas only needs an X Division Championship reign. But see, he was never NWA World Heavyweight Champion under the TNA banner. Same championship, different promotions. That cannot be disputed. Also, before WWE had two major titles, wasn't the WWE Campionship known as the WWE World Heavyweight Championship? Ah, yes it was. Now, since that title's name changed, it's still counted in the Triple Crown, isn't it? So, the ECW World (Heavywight) Championship has gone through a name change AND a promotion change. But based on the two pieces of evidence I just presented, it still counts toward the ECW Triple Crown. Now, if anyone else still thinks RVD doesn't belong, I hope you have a very, very good argument. I'm putting him back. Yours Truly, L2K 06:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC) The current ECW World Championship is the exact same championship as the old ECW World Heavyweight Championship. Wrong. Second, NWA is and always has been a group of promotions using the NWA name, TNA simply bought the rights to use that name, and with that they bought the history. Put RVD back and he'll be reverted, we work by consensus, which has already been reached. Darrenhusted 10:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is more confusion than concensus. And how are they not the same championship? Every source confirms that. I'm putting him back. L2K 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The WWE's own title history of the ECW Championship includes all title reigns of the original ECW from the moment it changed it's name to Extreme Championship Wrestling. It is still the ORIGINAL ECW World Heavyweight Championship, maintains the ORIGINAL title lineage, and counts as part of an ECW version of a Triple Crown. The WWE even recognizes the title histories of the ECW Television and World Tag Team Titles, even though they aren't in use now. Proof: http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/history/ecwchampionship/ - Nebulousecho 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Nitro a Triple Crown Champion?

Nitro has held the WWE Tag Team Championship and the Intercontinental Championship. Does his ECW World Title win at Vengeance make him a triple crown champion?

Yes, it should. Lex94 03:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say, put it under the "unofficial" triple crown winners. (add ECW World Title to the same graph where they have WWE, World, and the US titles) Also, he could be taken off the "potential" triple crown winners section. 70.16.133.35 03:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say just as there is speculation about the U.S. Championship and its status, perhaps create a table similar to this one, but about the ECW World Title. Seeking consensus on the community talk page would be a good way to get opinions on what needs to be done in this situation. - Deep Shadow 04:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. The only reason I thought it would count was because in the April 27, 2007 edition of Jim Ross' blog, he said he thought three World Titles were too many, which would indicate the ECW World Title counts as an equivalent to the WWE Championship and World Heavyweight Championship. 74.113.239.153 04:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I really have no idea why anyone would want to speculate on the status of the ECW title, and how does JR saying "three World titles were too many" mean it is a substitute for the Triple Crown? All he's saying is it is a World status title, not a substitute for the WWE or World titles. If the US title doesn't count (and to be honest the case for that is a lot stronger than the ECW title) then the ECW title doesn't count. Next we will be back down the road of the Cruiserweight title subbing for the European title. The consensus on this is now one of silence, Bobby Lashley didn't go on the potential champions list when he won the ECW title, and there is no reason for Nitro to be listed. The five titles listed are confirmed as part of the Triple Crown, as soon as a source tells us the ECW or US title are part of the Crown then by all means put it in, for now, leave them out. Darrenhusted 09:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason there is confusion is because Nitro actually has won 2 of the 3 relevant titles (Intercontinental and WWE Tag Team). Lashley hasn't won any, so he's not even close to being included. - Deep Shadow 09:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In terms of listing though Nitro can be kept where he was with the other Tag/IC champions. He doesn't need to be moved to a new category including ECW champions. Darrenhusted 09:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think yhat Nitro is one too because the ECW World title is just as important as the WWE or World Heavyweight title, and besides, Lashley has NOT won the Tag Team Championships, so I say add Nitro.GD1223 09:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with those who add the material, not those who delete, find a source that says "The ECW title can be used to substitue for the WWE or World title for a Triple Crown Championship" and then he can be added. And you are right GD1223, Lashley has not won a tag title but he has won the US, and that is why people keep trying to add him to this page. Darrenhusted 13:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the ECW World Title is now considered a WWE belt, John Morrison should be a Triple Crown Champion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.210.196 (talk • contribs) No, until a source can be found. Darrenhusted 16:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Existance of the ECW Triple Crown

[1]- Interview with a developmental Mathew Cardona. References Mikey Whipwreck as the ECW Triple Crown.

[www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.asp?id=6820&p=11]- PWI refers to Mikey Whiwreck as ECW Triple Crown.

Lex94 18:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A single interview in which a wrestler who was not connected in any way with ECW is not sufficient evidence, especially given that it would be in Cardona's best interests to augment Whipwreck's reputation by attributing accolades to him. The fact that there are no other references to the ECW Triple Crown from within the industry is fairly telling. McPhail 12:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Even so, Triple Crowns aren't always put out there, if a guy won the three major titles in a promotion I don't see how they don't have a triple crown. They pretty much silently exist. TonyFreakinAlmeida 19:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

ECW Title

Sandman referred to the ECW Championship Vince was wearing as the original ECW Championship when he stated that he held it 5 times. Here, it was decided that they werent the same, when all other source being WWE, PWI or any other site called it so. Now officially, a previous ECW Champion informed it was, so I dont understand why we can't refer to Rob Van Dam as an ECW Triple Crown. Does anyone care to explain? Lex94 02:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It still qualifies as OR, as Sandman didn't talk about the ECW TC. Darrenhusted 22:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

u really are a hard shell to crack. hasnt anyone noticed that wwe dropped the triple crown name. they havent mentioned it in years. the triple crown is now only something ficticious owned by the fans, so if it has to be edited, it should be by the fans. and wwe wont ever mention anything about it.

Last time it was mentioned was when Kurt Angle was let go, that's not too long ago and when HHH and HBK return I wouldn't be surprised if JR mentions they are both GSC and TCC. It has existed, just because it hasn't been mentioned in a week or month or year means that it goes away. Darrenhusted 23:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

They mentioned Triple Crown one night on Raw after Edge and Randy Orton won the tag titles.I think they were fighting DX. Kirby17 22:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

From wwe.com: "Rob Van Dam June 13, 2006 - July 4, 2006

At ECW One Night Stand, Rob Van Dam defeated John Cena to win the WWE Championship. Prior to the match, RVD said he would rechristen it as the ECW World Championship if he won; however, on the debut of ECW on Sci Fi on June 13, Paul Heyman simply awarded him the ECW Championship to make Rob a double champion. As such, this is recognized as the official re-activation of the ECW World Championship. " [2]

Obviously, they are saying that the ECW Championship is reactivated and is the same as the original one. and because the original one is part of the ECW Triple Crown, this one should too. (If RVD would have rechristened the WWE Championship, it wouldnt have. But the ECW Championship was brought back instead)Lex94 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There wer no sources supproting an ECW TC, so it was deleted, your point is correct, but moot. Darrenhusted 17:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Improving the "Unofficial Triple Crown" section...

I think the Unofficial Triple Crown champion section needs a little more elaboration as to why the 3 men who are listed there are not considered Triple Crown champions. Would anyone mind if I added some more info to it? SuperSonicTH 15:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the info Lex94 03:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thers is no info to add, Cena, Big Show and JBL have won the US title but not the IC title, and they have all won the WWE title and WWE tag team title, there is no one in the federation who has held the US title, not won the IC title and is waiting for the US title to be declared part of the TCC, I have no idea what information you could want to add. Darrenhusted 22:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the ECW Championship should be added to the "Unofficial Triple Crown" section because if the ECW Title was considered to be one of the top tier titles that would be part of an Official Triple Crown, then John Morrison would be a Triple Crown Champion with his past reigns as a WWE Tag Team (as part of MNM), Intercontinental, and ECW Champion. I think this would be fair because if the US Championship is an "Unofficial" Triple Crown title, then I don't see why the ECW Title shouldn't fall in the same category as the US Title. 00:34, 24 November 2007

Inclusion of ECW and WCW Triple Crowns

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The fact that wrestler X won titles A, B and C is not intrinsically noteworthy. The combination of titles achieves notability when it is formally recognised by a global professional wrestling promotion. The fact that another promotion possessed an analogous set of titles does not warrant mention. The Triple Crowns are notable because WWE and TNA have defined them, not irrespective of this fact. Additional Triple Crowns should be added to the page only if there is a reliable source stating unambiguously that they are formally recognised accomplishments. McPhail 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. That definitely helps end all controversies about RVD. L2K 15:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree as well. Gavyn Sykes 23:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ECW Triple Crown (one more time)

http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/archive/cardonahired This link refers to Mikey Whipwreck as a ECW Triple Crown Championship....Because it is published by the WWE, the owner of ECW and its title history, it either retroaticvely establishes or reafirms the existance of an ECW Triple Crown 24.164.136.207 (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually for one agree. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)