So having seen all the Rumbles since 1998, I would have to say that during that period....
The best was 2009. Massive amount of star power and action all the time plus no one really dominated and there were loads of wrestlers in the ring all the way through.
Worst was 1999. Not because McMahon won it but because there was only ever a few wrestlers in the ring at once and it was just boring!
2012 was horrible, the ending sequence was decent but the whole rumble felt like a battle royal from Raw. What made it worse was that 1/10th of the entrants...were COMMENTATORS.
2011, the winner was a big dissapointment, but the Rumble was great.
I don't think 1999 was the BEST, but I do think it was good and gets too much hate. It was a fun match and the winner was appropriate considering the storyline at the time.
2004 is the best followed by 2007 and 2001. Worst is between one of those in the mid 90s that were super short (think 96) and 2012 was terrible save for the ending.
Best
1.) 1992 - Had the best star power and was the first and only time a Rumble was for the WWF title.
2.) 2004 - Had many of the best moments in Rumble history with some great returns as well. By far the best Rumble in terms of storytelling and emotion.
3.) 2001 - Many great moments like 2004 did.
4.) 2007 - One of the most star studded Rumbles with one of the best endings ever as well.
5.) 2002 - Star studded and many great returns
Worst
1.) 1995 - It was filled with jobbers. HBK winning was the only good thing about it.
2.) 1993 - Lack of real star power and one of the worst finishes ever.
3.) 1988 - Very slow paced, no star talent (Hogan didn't even compete) and an overall boring match. I would have made it #1 if wasn't for the low prestige.
4.) 1999 - Very overrated imo. It had a bunch of nobodies and ended with Vince winning. It was more of a big angle than an actual match.
5.) 2012 - I hate to reiterate, but most of this Rumble really did feel like it was from an episode of Raw.
Just realised how awful the 2012 participants were, and how much better this years looks already.
Only 17 of the wrestlers were full-time male, singles competitors. And those 17 included the likes of Alex Riley, Jinder Mahal, Khali and David Otunga. It was a complete jobber-fest.
2001 has always been my favourite, although I thought Punk's promo during the 2011 Rumble was brilliant.
Just realised how awful the 2012 participants were, and how much better this years looks already.
Only 17 of the wrestlers were full-time male, singles competitors. And those 17 included the likes of Alex Riley, Jinder Mahal, Khali and David Otunga. It was a complete jobber-fest.
2001 has always been my favourite, although I thought Punk's promo during the 2011 Rumble was brilliant.
2011 was strange. Punk was brilliant and the whole thing he did with Nexus in that rumble was good (although it was all set up just to be fed to Cena) and it had two awesome returns in Nash and Booker T. Plus the Santino/Del Rio finish was a nice touch BUT I think 40 men was just too much and it made it feel less star-studded than it would've been. Morrisons spot was cool though.
Best: 01,04,02,07
Worst:99,12,the one's in the mid 90s
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Wrestling Forum
23.4M posts
266.5K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to all Wrestling enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about WWE, AEW, Ring of Honor, Impact and all forms of professional and amateur wrestling.