Should the Royal Rumble winner be... - Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 15 (permalink) Old 01-11-2013, 03:21 AM Thread Starter
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 572
Points: 3
     
Should the Royal Rumble winner be...

a) A wrestler who is a former world champion, has main evented multiple PPVs, will be able to handle main eventing Wrestlemania, and will likely have, or already have a HoF worthy career.

Or

b) An up and coming wrestler, has been pushed to the moon, and just needs that one extra big win/career defining moment to push him to the main event?


I've always maintained that the RR is one of the most prestigious events to win, and because of that, in my opinion, the winner should be someone from category a. When you look at the past winners of Hogan, Hart, HBK, Austin, Rock, HHH, these guys are all legends and (future) Hall of Famers. Even in the recent generation, we've had Cena, Orton, Batista, Edge, Taker all win. These guys have main evented multiple PPVs and have all main evented Wrestlemania.

In the past couple of years we've had Del Rio and Sheamus win. And no offense to those guys but they are not in the same league as the other past winners. It really cheapens the concept and it shows WWE dont have faith in those guys when they open WM instead of closing WM.

The general consensus of this years Rumble winner is either Cena or Ryback. Even though I find Cena boring, predictable and cringe-worthy, I'd rather have him win over Ryback. If WWE arent willing to back Ryback and put him on last at WM, then he doesnt deserve to win the Rumble. And WWE are never going to put Ryback on last.
beserker300 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 15 (permalink) Old 01-11-2013, 06:44 AM
Moron
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,758
Points: 0
                     
Re: Should the Royal Rumble winner be...

Someone who deserves it but with following reservations.

Austin won it thrice in four years-No one should ever win it thrice again unless that someone gets hugely popular

Hogan and HBK won it twice-Among current wrestlers,no one but Cena deserves to win it more than once

Last edited by austin316 G.O.A.T; 01-11-2013 at 06:47 AM.
austin316 G.O.A.T is offline  
post #3 of 15 (permalink) Old 01-11-2013, 07:00 AM
The Loose Cannon
 
Klee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: TOKYO DOME HYPE
Posts: 5,669
Points: 991
                     
Re: Should the Royal Rumble winner be...

Quote:
Originally Posted by beserker300 View Post
a) A wrestler who is a former world champion, has main evented multiple PPVs, will be able to handle main eventing Wrestlemania, and will likely have, or already have a HoF worthy career.

Or

b) An up and coming wrestler, has been pushed to the moon, and just needs that one extra big win/career defining moment to push him to the main event?


I've always maintained that the RR is one of the most prestigious events to win, and because of that, in my opinion, the winner should be someone from category a. When you look at the past winners of Hogan, Hart, HBK, Austin, Rock, HHH, these guys are all legends and (future) Hall of Famers. Even in the recent generation, we've had Cena, Orton, Batista, Edge, Taker all win. These guys have main evented multiple PPVs and have all main evented Wrestlemania.

In the past couple of years we've had Del Rio and Sheamus win. And no offense to those guys but they are not in the same league as the other past winners. It really cheapens the concept and it shows WWE dont have faith in those guys when they open WM instead of closing WM.

The general consensus of this years Rumble winner is either Cena or Ryback. Even though I find Cena boring, predictable and cringe-worthy, I'd rather have him win over Ryback. If WWE arent willing to back Ryback and put him on last at WM, then he doesnt deserve to win the Rumble. And WWE are never going to put Ryback on last.
This is ridiculous.

Did you even consider what stage those guys were at in their respective careers when they the ROYAL RUMBLE!??

Klee is offline  
post #4 of 15 (permalink) Old 01-11-2013, 03:34 PM
Learning to break kayfabe
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 25
Points: 0
 
Re: Should the Royal Rumble winner be...

i think it should be someone who can carry the weight of a wm main event, whether they have held a main title or not before.

I think it should be cena. now, im not a fan of cena, but they need to start making the royal rumble win the main event again. the past few years we have seen the rumble winner in the first match. we have also complained that even though cena has been seen to have the worst year then why give him a title shot? have him legit win the rumble from an early number (how about he draws 1 and ziggler draws 30) now he gets the match with the rock at 29 without it being handed to him.

this is assuming the rock wins, but why don't we make the main event more interesting? the rock wins the wwe title at the rumble, the next night rock and cena square off with starting to build up for part 2 of the feud but punk gets his rematch clause and is an automatic entrant into the chamber. punk wins, rock gets his rematch at wm29 and we have a triple threat with arguably the 3 biggest stars in the company at the moment.

throw brock somehow into that for a fatal four way then we may have one of the best main events in a long time
andy3050uk is offline  
post #5 of 15 (permalink) Old 01-11-2013, 08:36 PM
Acknowledged by SCOTT STEINER
 
kwab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,154
Points: 542
             
Re: Should the Royal Rumble winner be...

I think they need to do it on a case-by-case (or with this case, a year-by-year) basis, depending on which stars are available, who holds the tiles, and storylines. It could be an established vet one year, a newcomer the next, a returning star the year after,etc.

Here's the breakdown of the years, the winners, and their current level in the pecking order:

1994 - Hart & Luger - main eventer & main eventer
1995 - Shawn Michaels - upper midcard
1996 - Shawn Michaels - upper/main event (being groomed for run as top guy)
1997 - Steve Austin - upper midcard
1998 - Steve Austin - upper/main event (being groomed for run as top guy)
1999 - Vince McMahon - (storyline: to keep Austin from winning)
2000 - The Rock - main event (first big win as the top guy)
2001 - Steve Austin - main event (returning superstar from injury; Austin-Rock showdown at 'Mania)
2002 - Triple H - main event (returning superstar from injury)
2003 - Brock Lesnar - main event (big win as a top face)
2004 - Chris Benoit - upper/main event (to firmly establish position at top level)
2005 - Batista - upper midcard (being groomed to be a top guy; storyline with Evolution break-up)
2006 - Rey Mysterio - upper midcard (established vet breaking through to top level; storyline with Benoit death)
2007 - Undertaker - main event (first rumble win for superstar)
2008 - John Cena - main event (returning superstar from injury/first rumble win)
2009 - Randy Orton - main event (first rumble win; storyline with HHH)
2010 - Edge - main event (returning superstar from injury; storyline with Jericho)
2011 - Alberto Del Rio - upper midcard (pushing newcomer to the top level)
2012 - Sheamus - upper/main event (first big win as a face; groomed to be a top guy)



There's a nice mixture in there. All the winners are either one of 4 or 5 things:
1) They're being groomed for the main event as one of the top 2 babyfaces in the company.
2) They're a newly minted main eventer getting his first Rumble win.
3) They're a superstar returning from an injury that kept them on the sidelines for the most part of the prior year.
4) They're a superstar or hovering around the main event level with a hot storyline set in stone.
5) They're an up-and-coming star that hopefully gets a boost from the Rumble win.


That said, there's no right or wrong answer to me. Under different circumstances I would personally be fine with different winners for this year's Rumble. Ryback could win under reasons 1 and 5. Cena could win under reason 4 (rematch with Rock). Ziggler has an outside shot with reasons 4 and 5 (depends on what they have planned with him, the MITB briefcase, and world title). Mark Henry could win under reason 3.

Live Shows Attended
10 - Pay-Per-View - WrestleMania 2000, No Way Out '01, Judgment Day '01, SummerSlam '01, Vengeance '01, Royal Rumble '05, WrestleMania 21, WrestleMania XXVI, WrestleMania XXVIII, Royal Rumble '13, WrestleMania XXX, WrestleMania 31...
11 - Monday Night Raw - 7/27/98, 9/13/99, 4/3/00, 10/09/00, 8/06/01, 9/23/02, 3/24/03, 7/21/03, 8/23/04, 4/4/05, 3/15/10, 4/7/14, 3/30/15...
5 - SmackDown - 11/30/99, 3/13/01, 8/07/01, 3/25/03, 6/03/03...
5 - House Show - 6/30/94, 7/29/94, 7/17/99, 7/08/00, 1/06/01...

All-Time Magnificent Seven
Bret Hart, Chris Jericho, Randy Savage, Jake Roberts, Kurt Angle, Steve Austin, CM Punk

Current Magnificent Seven
Dean Ambrose, Daniel Bryan, Dolph Ziggler, Bray Wyatt, Damien Mizdow, Seth Rollins, Cesaro (& Kidd)
kwab is offline  
post #6 of 15 (permalink) Old 01-12-2013, 01:40 AM
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
TheVoiceless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 824
Points: 0
         
Re: Should the Royal Rumble winner be...

Rey won because of Eddie not Beniot
TheVoiceless is offline  
post #7 of 15 (permalink) Old 01-12-2013, 06:18 PM Thread Starter
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 572
Points: 3
     
Re: Should the Royal Rumble winner be...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwab View Post
I think they need to do it on a case-by-case (or with this case, a year-by-year) basis, depending on which stars are available, who holds the tiles, and storylines. It could be an established vet one year, a newcomer the next, a returning star the year after,etc.

Here's the breakdown of the years, the winners, and their current level in the pecking order:

1994 - Hart & Luger - main eventer & main eventer
1995 - Shawn Michaels - upper midcard
1996 - Shawn Michaels - upper/main event (being groomed for run as top guy)
1997 - Steve Austin - upper midcard
1998 - Steve Austin - upper/main event (being groomed for run as top guy)
1999 - Vince McMahon - (storyline: to keep Austin from winning)
2000 - The Rock - main event (first big win as the top guy)
2001 - Steve Austin - main event (returning superstar from injury; Austin-Rock showdown at 'Mania)
2002 - Triple H - main event (returning superstar from injury)
2003 - Brock Lesnar - main event (big win as a top face)
2004 - Chris Benoit - upper/main event (to firmly establish position at top level)
2005 - Batista - upper midcard (being groomed to be a top guy; storyline with Evolution break-up)
2006 - Rey Mysterio - upper midcard (established vet breaking through to top level; storyline with Benoit death)
2007 - Undertaker - main event (first rumble win for superstar)
2008 - John Cena - main event (returning superstar from injury/first rumble win)
2009 - Randy Orton - main event (first rumble win; storyline with HHH)
2010 - Edge - main event (returning superstar from injury; storyline with Jericho)
2011 - Alberto Del Rio - upper midcard (pushing newcomer to the top level)
2012 - Sheamus - upper/main event (first big win as a face; groomed to be a top guy)



There's a nice mixture in there. All the winners are either one of 4 or 5 things:
1) They're being groomed for the main event as one of the top 2 babyfaces in the company.
2) They're a newly minted main eventer getting his first Rumble win.
3) They're a superstar returning from an injury that kept them on the sidelines for the most part of the prior year.
4) They're a superstar or hovering around the main event level with a hot storyline set in stone.
5) They're an up-and-coming star that hopefully gets a boost from the Rumble win.


That said, there's no right or wrong answer to me. Under different circumstances I would personally be fine with different winners for this year's Rumble. Ryback could win under reasons 1 and 5. Cena could win under reason 4 (rematch with Rock). Ziggler has an outside shot with reasons 4 and 5 (depends on what they have planned with him, the MITB briefcase, and world title). Mark Henry could win under reason 3.
Great summary there. I would say that apart from Shawn Michaels in 1995, Austin in 1997 and maybe Rey in 2006, all the winners from 1994-2010 were main eventers or being groomed for the main event.

The thing with Ryback is yes he could win under reasons 1 and 5. But the difference is when Austin won it in 1998, and Batista won it in 2005 for those same reasons, WWE pushed them hard the following year such that they were clearly within the top 2 babyfaces at the time. I doubt Ryback would be pushed as hard. If he does win, he wont even be the most important match at WM. Rock v Cena and depending on if HHH/Lesnar/Taker all wrestle, that would relegate Ryback to the 2nd/3rd/4th biggest match at WM. You cant build momentum if you're not conceived to be taken seriously.

I just dont want to see another Sheamus/Del Rio type rumble winner. Id rather see the WWE title be the last match on the WM card and if thats Cena then so be it.
beserker300 is offline  
post #8 of 15 (permalink) Old 01-12-2013, 09:02 PM
Humbled
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,658
Points: 0
                     
Re: Should the Royal Rumble winner be...

I say Daniel Bryan wins it this year.
truk83 is offline  
post #9 of 15 (permalink) Old 01-12-2013, 09:26 PM
Carrying SCOTT STEINER's bags
 
SarcasmoBlaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,598
Points: 57
                     
Re: Should the Royal Rumble winner be...

Depends on the year. This year it should be Ryback, so b.
SarcasmoBlaster is online now  
post #10 of 15 (permalink) Old 01-12-2013, 11:39 PM
Yelled at by SCOTT STEINER
 
DisturbedOne98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,771
Points: 24
               
Re: Should the Royal Rumble winner be...

Yeah, I could sort of see it being Ryback, but I do think they're pushing him a bit more cautiously now. It should be interesting nonetheless!

The King of Kings
DisturbedOne98 is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome