Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,507 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Firstly, let me first say that the Royal Rumble is an amazing concept and I would never say to get rid of the event.

Moving on....

My issue with the Royal Rumble is that in the past few years, it has really become pointless. It use to be a match that gave somebody the main event push that they needed. It was used to get somebody to the next level.

Good examples: Austin winning in 1998, Benoit winning in 2004, Batista winning in 2005, Rey Mysterio in 2006 (even though he got it for the wrong reasons, IMO)

there were even guys who had been main eventing before, but it still made sense for them to win it.

Examples: brock lesnar in 03, The Rock in 2000, Triple H in '02, etc.

the past several years though have seen the Royal Rumble be used only as an excuse to get an already established main eventer into the main event at Wrestlemania.

the past few years have seen Undertaker, Cena, Orton, and the latest, Edge win the RR. For what though? Non of these guys certainly didnt need to win the RR.

Now there are talks of having Randy Orton winning the Rumble again (probably to face Cean at WM). Im hoping they dont do this and use the Rumble this year to give somebody new a push; and somebody who actually deserves it.

So what is your view on the current state of the Rumble?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,731 Posts
Sometimes there just isn't the right young guy to elevate. I get your point though. They have fucked up some winners recently. Like Orton and Edge. Orton should've won at Mania and Edge should've been treated a lot better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
I think the problem is Money in the Bank. MITB used to serve the same purpose as the RR, the main difference being the RR winner gets the shot at Wrestlemania whereas the MITB winner can cash in whenever. While I like the MITB concept, giving it its own PPV and each show a MITB winner has cheapened it IMO. I mean, we had THREE MITB winners this year, it has gotten ridiculous. Royal Rumble is such an awesome concept, but its effect has been lessened by poor booking and overdoing MITB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,394 Posts
I think the problem is Money in the Bank. MITB used to serve the same purpose as the RR, the main difference being the RR winner gets the shot at Wrestlemania whereas the MITB winner can cash in whenever. While I like the MITB concept, giving it its own PPV and each show a MITB winner has cheapened it IMO. I mean, we had THREE MITB winners this year, it has gotten ridiculous. Royal Rumble is such an awesome concept, but its effect has been lessened by poor booking and overdoing MITB
I'm not sure that it's overusing the MITB concept as it might actually be the MITB concept itself. Or, to be more precise, the way it's used. It used to be that a person would win MITB, then if they're not yet big enough to win the World Title, they get built up and the trigger gets pulled sometime in Fall/Winter. Currently, however, as soon as they need to get the title off of someone, they use the MITB, the champ gets a quick reign, then is pushed back into the midcard. There are exceptions, of course, but that's what it feels like to me.

With the Royal Rumble, it's ideal for pushing almost anyone to the main event, but instead there's the idea that MITB is the way to push new guys, so the RR goes to some main event guy, anyways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,120 Posts
I think they just don't want to risk putting someone that isn't establish enough to headline wrestlemania.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
I'm not sure that it's overusing the MITB concept as it might actually be the MITB concept itself. Or, to be more precise, the way it's used. It used to be that a person would win MITB, then if they're not yet big enough to win the World Title, they get built up and the trigger gets pulled sometime in Fall/Winter. Currently, however, as soon as they need to get the title off of someone, they use the MITB, the champ gets a quick reign, then is pushed back into the midcard. There are exceptions, of course, but that's what it feels like to me.
Pretty much. Also, it was cool at first to see the way guys like Punk and Swagger used it to defeat a "wounded" champ, but that's gotten very old. I'd like to see a MITB winner come out on the poening segment of Raw and say "I'm challenging the champion tonight, I want to beat him when he's at 100% so I can earn the title". That would be pretty cool
 

·
Lucy Snorebush
Joined
·
2,073 Posts
The Rumble for me is rapidly dying out in terms of personal favouritism with MITB taking over at the same rate. The problem with the rumble is there's not really any shocks anymore (Maven drop kicking Taker out of the ring anyone?).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,394 Posts
Pretty much. Also, it was cool at first to see the way guys like Punk and Swagger used it to defeat a "wounded" champ, but that's gotten very old. I'd like to see a MITB winner come out on the poening segment of Raw and say "I'm challenging the champion tonight, I want to beat him when he's at 100% so I can earn the title". That would be pretty cool
I'm not 100% that it's necessary that the MITB winner "earns the title". yes, it has gotten rather boring to see the MITB winner defeat a "wounded" champ, but that method has been used extensively in the past and had success. Punk cashed in on an "injured" Hardy leading to an acclaimed (by some, though imo boring) feud with Hardy and a heel turn. When Miz cashes it in (if he doesn't lose it to someone else beforehand) I can guarantee that it'll be on a "defeated" champ.

The biggest issue is the lack of build for the character then they're given a horrendous reign. Swagger spent months losing matches on Raw then all of a sudden was WHC. Swagger was highly entertaining, but his reign never even had a single legit feud and all his title matches lasted a combined half hour maybe. Punk in '08 went from ECW to being WHC on a Raw which had Cena, Batista, JBL, Kane, Jericho, and HBK. Punk's reign, once again, didn't have a single feud that lasted more than one PPV.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,012 Posts
i thought the premise by a wrestling fan standpoint is that anybody can win but instead its ALWAYS a main eventer, so there really is no reason for the others to be there and with plenty of stipulation matches that happen at later shows de-emphasise the result of the royal rumble throughout the years it might as well not be there, its going to be predictable every time, they don't anybody else any chance to break through not even for the sake of surprise, there is always a title change by the winner at Mania and its by someone WHO HAS ALREADY HELD THE BELT
 

·
The Power Of Three Will Set You Free
Joined
·
4,022 Posts
Usually, the past few years they gave it to a returning star Cena and Edge so will they do that again if Jericho returns? But I dont think that is the problem with The Rumble. I dont think it matters that they give a main eventer the win at The Rumble. I think that the winner of the Royal Rumble should main event(very last match) at Mania, not a match halfway during the show.
 

·
i ain't got no type
Joined
·
1,490 Posts
In my honest opinion Rey Mysterio winning was the greatest thing that could have happened at that time. He was a young talent who needed to be pushed and he did and he lasted a while, making my favorite feud of 06 with King Booker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
648 Posts
I'm not 100% that it's necessary that the MITB winner "earns the title". yes, it has gotten rather boring to see the MITB winner defeat a "wounded" champ, but that method has been used extensively in the past and had success. Punk cashed in on an "injured" Hardy leading to an acclaimed (by some, though imo boring) feud with Hardy and a heel turn. When Miz cashes it in (if he doesn't lose it to someone else beforehand) I can guarantee that it'll be on a "defeated" champ.
You're right. The MITB winner doesn't have to "earn" the title per se, I just think something different for a change would be nice. At least have the Miz run down, clobber the champ 20 times with a chair and THEN cash it in. Anything so long as it's not another Punk or Swagger type cash in, where they capitalized on someone elses beatdown of the champ.

The biggest issue is the lack of build for the character then they're given a horrendous reign. Swagger spent months losing matches on Raw then all of a sudden was WHC. Swagger was highly entertaining, but his reign never even had a single legit feud and all his title matches lasted a combined half hour maybe. Punk in '08 went from ECW to being WHC on a Raw which had Cena, Batista, JBL, Kane, Jericho, and HBK. Punk's reign, once again, didn't have a single feud that lasted more than one PPV.
Correct again. Swagger was the least credible champ I've seen in a while, not because of a lack of ability (Swagger has a lot of talent) but because there was no build up to his reign. Just like you said, he spent months jobbing on Raw and now all of a sudden we are supposed to buy him as champ just because he's got the belt? Most people didn't buy it, and Swagger's first run with the title was almost a joke, especially when you consider he has the talent to be a very good champion. Same with Punk, it just felt like a transitional champion the entire time Punk was champ on Raw.

WWE didn't give us any reason to care that Punk and Swagger were champ other than they won MITB. Then they went back to mid carding. It demeans the entire concept of MITB to have a mid carder cash in on a wounded champ, hold the title a couple of weeks and then go back to mid carding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
Unfortunately I think The Royal Rumble is becoming irrelevant like the KOR. I wouldn't even doubt if they have the Royal Rumble on a three hour RAW in two years.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top