Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,598 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Are two chamber bouts in one night overkill?

Does it negate the point of the historic Royal Rumble?

Would it be better and more sensible to have just one chamber bout featuring the final six from the Royal Rumble? This would be a number one contenders match rather than a title bout.


Or should it stay the same as the past two events?
 

·
These days I find beauty as depressing as years be
Joined
·
13,975 Posts
Are two chamber bouts in one night overkill?

Does it negate the point of the historic Royal Rumble?

Would it be better and more sensible to have just one chamber bout featuring the final six from the Royal Rumble? This would be a number one contenders match rather than a title bout.


Or should it stay the same as the past two events?
Its fine, and it doesn't affect the winner of the Rumble since the matches are for the championship. I always enjoy this ppv, since its one of the better ones.
 

·
"Night's Watch! With Me!"
Joined
·
8,030 Posts
Its fine, and it doesn't affect the winner of the Rumble since the matches are for the championship. I always enjoy this ppv, since its one of the better ones.
agreed. This is the only one of the gimmick PPV's that I enjoy (even though I do miss NWO)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,560 Posts
Its fine, and it doesn't affect the winner of the Rumble since the matches are for the championship. I always enjoy this ppv, since its one of the better ones.
Well except that time they weren't for the championships and Cena cashed in at EC instead. The number one contenders were picked from the chamber matches, that did have a slight dampening effect on the RR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,833 Posts
It adds more to the rumble because the rumble winner gets to face the winner of their brands EC so there's many possibilities of who the rumble winner might face.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,072 Posts
Are two chamber bouts in one night overkill?

Does it negate the point of the historic Royal Rumble?

Would it be better and more sensible to have just one chamber bout featuring the final six from the Royal Rumble? This would be a number one contenders match rather than a title bout.


Or should it stay the same as the past two events?
Why have the Rumble at all if the final six are just going to duke it out in a Chamber match a month later? I like the current system, and it somehow manages to steer clear of feeling like overkill.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,193 Posts
I always liked the idea of having (only) one Elimination Chamber to determine the number 1 contender for the brand that doesn't contain the Rumble winner. So 2010 it would've been a Raw chamber as Edge is from Smackdown. But I can't complain much as the two PPVs we've seen in this title format both worked well. Shame about the lacklustre effort with the midcard.
 

·
These days I find beauty as depressing as years be
Joined
·
13,975 Posts
Well except that time they weren't for the championships and Cena cashed in at EC instead. The number one contenders were picked from the chamber matches, that did have a slight dampening effect on the RR.
well cena is a poopyhead8*D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
I think this year its Miz v. Barrett v. Cena v. Orton v. Morrison v. Sheamus

it would great if the Undertaker come down and acted like he was going after Barrett only to nail Cena and make Barrett champion. Nexus will come out and say burying the Undertaker was all part of the bigger picture, which they definitely have to get too at some point, he keeps saying it and they just keeping ditching like it was never said. Undertaker v. Cena would sell at WM 27 and I think HHH going to smackdown and Taker coming to Raw would make more sense, since HHH has done every feud imaginable on raw and same with Taker on Smackdown. We then get Edge v. HHH(who wins the Rumble) Cena v. Taker and Barrett v. The Miz v. Randy Orton in a triple threat. Knowing the WWE's predictability though we get Cena v. Orton, Taker v. Edge and Barrett v. HHH(who takes out Nexus for attacking his father in law) Sheamus, Miz, Morrison etc...are in the MITB
 

·
I must away and tend to my ravens
Joined
·
11,236 Posts
Are two chamber bouts in one night overkill?

Does it negate the point of the historic Royal Rumble?

Would it be better and more sensible to have just one chamber bout featuring the final six from the Royal Rumble? This would be a number one contenders match rather than a title bout.


Or should it stay the same as the past two events?
I'd simply move on of the EC matches to a different PPV, Survivor Series being the obvious one since that's where it debuted in 2002. The EC after the Rumble (I'd rename the PPV, possibly going back to No Way Out, possibly not) would be over the version of the world title that was not already being contested at Wrestlemania, for example, Raw superstar Sheamus wins the Rumble and decides to go for the Smackdown title, the element of choice introduced by Benoit being retained, the EC is then for the Raw belt.

The other one at Survivor Series would automatically be for the title not contested in February, with an additional stipulation that anyone who had competed in the first match could not compete in the second should they switch brands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,981 Posts
Are two chamber bouts in one night overkill?

Does it negate the point of the historic Royal Rumble?

Would it be better and more sensible to have just one chamber bout featuring the final six from the Royal Rumble? This would be a number one contenders match rather than a title bout.


Or should it stay the same as the past two events?
Hey dude I see where you're coming from but actually I think your idea would negate the Rumble, because the final five losers could gain an advantage over the Rumble winner.

The #1 contender usually does something else during Feb anyways while the Title scene is shaken up a bit for Mania, so I think currently the Rumble is still very relevant because its outcome isn't nerfed in any way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
934 Posts
One of my favorite PPVs. I don't believe 2 EC matches in one night is overkill. It's one of those PPVs where big surprises can happen and having two serious EC matches just makes it less predictable.
 

·
Asuka
Joined
·
96,572 Posts
It's not overkill but they've got to throw the PPV away UNLESS they're going to give us blood. WWE is just being nonsensical with throwing gimmick after gimmick after gimmick after gimmick at us, to try to mask the fact that the product is missing the key reason these gimmicks are worth watching.
 

·
KAMEHAMEHA!
Joined
·
18,184 Posts
One chamber match to determine the number one contender for whichever championship the Rumble winner doesn't end up contesting for at WrestleMania would be better, I agree. The two chambers worked in 2009 b/c of the huge angle that was part of it. But WWE right now is probably thinking of adding a third chamber match to fill the time. :/
 

·
4X Efed World Champion
Joined
·
676 Posts
I like the Elimination Chamber better as 1 match, and at a ppv like Survivor Series. Having 2 EC matches in one show is overkill IMO.

WWE needs to go back to the way they 1st implemented the chamber
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,651 Posts
I think this year its Miz v. Barrett v. Cena v. Orton v. Morrison v. Sheamus

it would great if the Undertaker come down and acted like he was going after Barrett only to nail Cena and make Barrett champion. Nexus will come out and say burying the Undertaker was all part of the bigger picture, which they definitely have to get too at some point, he keeps saying it and they just keeping ditching like it was never said. Undertaker v. Cena would sell at WM 27 and I think HHH going to smackdown and Taker coming to Raw would make more sense, since HHH has done every feud imaginable on raw and same with Taker on Smackdown. We then get Edge v. HHH(who wins the Rumble) Cena v. Taker and Barrett v. The Miz v. Randy Orton in a triple threat. Knowing the WWE's predictability though we get Cena v. Orton, Taker v. Edge and Barrett v. HHH(who takes out Nexus for attacking his father in law) Sheamus, Miz, Morrison etc...are in the MITB
So they bury Undertaker and Undertaker comes back and helps the Nexus........am I missing something here?:side:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,012 Posts
i thought the original concept was that whichever brand didn't get the main event at mania got their no1 contender decided in the chamber

but if you only have to get through 5 men, varyingly indirectly, instead of random number of guys to go on to become a world champion then what is the point of the rumble again
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top