[paul2k86]

sounds like not a bad idea, although i doubt the idea could last 3-4 hours and the part about the wrestlers goin in and out of both rings would just be confusing. but the two rings would be good

 

[addog1987]

it would have to have more rules. it would be just total chaos out there

 

[Ben Breiby]

This sounds an awful lot like the former World Championship Wrestling's World War 3 setup. Their are three rings setup side by side and in each ring their is twenty superstars. The sixty superstars then wrestle for as long as is needed, until their is five superstars left in each ring where they move into the third ring to wrestle until their is one survivor.

This could be a possibility but would go against all former Royal Rumbles, excluding the 1992 Royal Rumble, where the champions would both be in the rings with the other superstars. I think you would have to have the two champions of their respective brands not be allowed to enter into the Royal Rumble. And, I think someone has brought up the scenario that it would not last the three or four hours you were planning on. If anyone remembers World Championship Wrestling's World War III pay-per-views they did the idea I proposed above, but also had anywhere from four to six matches along with it for the pay-per-view's entirety. The only reason they were able to do this is because at that time period, WCW had an incredibly large roster. WWE could only pull this off if they brought up some of their minor-leaguers in the Ohio Valley Wrestling promotion up to enter the Royal Rumble.

 

[HBK FAN 4 EVER]

i think thy need wepons

 

[joojoobs]

not forgettin ben brieby that at the moment wwe does have about 60 stars so they could pull it off but as you said it would be just like world war three.
i have the 1998 one on video it so mad cos kevin nash wins his ring in like 4 minutes then waits until they merge into the middle ring and kicks arse there too.

 

[Fail]

l agree, they should have Weapons atleast hanging on the ropes, but l wouldn't sit through a 3/4 hour Royal Rumble, l would rather see a weapon thing.

 

[jesuskillsjews]

okay so keep matches, expand rumble to whole roster, 1 ring, 2 huors of matches, 2 hour rumble. how's that sound? btw, there are about 70 wrestlers currently under contract by wwe. not all of them get tv time.

 

[Ben Breiby]

Well, I think their is still some flaws to this after all. Even with seventy wrestlers on the roster, you have to take into consideration those who are injured, and the females; unless you want a coed Royal Rumble. Then, have the three or four matches that normally take place before or after the Rumble eliminates some of those seven wrestlers. Then you have to include the roster cuts that WWE is going to make soon, that takes some wrestlers away as well. And for all of those wrestlers to be in one ring, even if they go by Royal Rumble standards it still wouldn't be as entertaining. You would need at least two rings.

 

[jesuskillsjews]

first, i thougt you'd all assume that i was excluding women and injured guys. so keep 2 rings, and have a battle rayal for womens title. how's that sound

 

[ChristopheR.]

a lot of the best matches I have ever seen were at the Royal Rumble, not in it.

So..... naaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[jesuskillsjews]

well, we'd still have 4 to 5 matches, but we could also expand it to 4 hoyrs for all the raw/smackdown shows, and keep the brand specific ppvs to 3 hours. btw, a dream wrestlemania would be at least 5-6 hours.