Royal Rumble: Rate them!

[Mr. TM]

What was the best Royal Rumble in your opinions? We have 21 to chose from starting from 1988 up to 2008s. The Royal Rumble has created the chase program up to WrestleManias main event. It is one of the 4 WWE PPVs, and the highlight of January. What was the best one?

[Mr. TM]

I myself choose the 2002 Royal Rumble after Triple H came back from his injury and won the Royal Rumble. Some of the men he had to face were greats like Austin, Kane, Big SHow, Mr. Perfect, Angle, RVD, Booker. It was a great Rumble in itself, and it started a great Road to Wrestlemania.

[klunderbunker]

Wow there really have been 21 of these things. To save listing off 21, I'll go with top and bottom 3.

#1- 1992. The commentary alone makes this one classic. I remember renting this when I was 5 not knowing the outcome and nearly crying when Flair won. It was a total shock to see Hogan lose. Gorilla and Heenan bickering and Heenan's panicking the whole match is the funniest hour I've ever seen in wrestling.

#2- 1990. This was the Rumble where the world was finally set straight. Seeing Demolition come out 1/2 was great. Those two beat the crap out of each other. Not like the Steiners in 2004. When Hogan came in late, it was obvious who was going to win, and it's sheer nostalgia for me. Hogan ruled the WWF, and he showed it here.

#3- 2001. Had a hard time between this one and 2000. This one had it all. Kane dominating, Austin at his best, Drew Carey, the Hardyz one on one, and the Honkey Tonk Man. While it was pretty obvious Austin was going to win, there was just enough madness going on to make it not quite sure.

Bottom 3

#1- 1995. Yes this was where Shawn made the big time, but the one minute intervals just messed things up. You know you're in trouble when Dick Murdoch carries the last 10minutes.

#2- 2006. Rey winning was great, but damn it enough of the iron man runs. It takes away from the specialness of the first ones like Flair and Michaels to do it time after time.

#3- 1993. This one was a double bad ending. First of all, once Yokozuna got in, the ending was obvious. Matches like that rarely (but sometiems) can work. Then Macho hitting the elbow, getting up, then going back to cover was just sloppy looking.

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

2001 wins my vote for a number of reasons. The secret entrants like Big Show and Haku were great additions, i had no idea Show was gonna come back and after the huge angle they had with him and Rock the year before just made it seem like his return wud b big, seeing Drew Carey getting in instead of Chaz or D'lo when they had already qualified was hilarious, as was him trying to pay off Kane not to kill him. Watching it become a hardcore rumble was a great way to fill out the middle of the rumble, and it was good to see Kane so dominant having been a fan of Kane since his debut. I was very sad to see him get eliminated by Austin of all people after such a great effort.

[IC25]

Ric Flair's win, HANDS DOWN. Here are a few reasons why.

1. It was the first time the Royal Rumble meant a damn thing. The first two, won by Duggan and Hogan, were just plain matches. almost like testers. When WWF realized that you could build an entire show around the match by making it mean something, they hit the jackpot. With the WWF Title vacant due to the Hogan / Undertaker fiasco at Tuesday in Texas, EVERYONE was tuned in to see if Hogan would regain the belt, if Undertaker was as dominant as he seemed, or if Randy Savage, Sid Justice, or Roddy Piper could break through.

2. The commentary. Somebody already mentioned this, but the fact remains that Monsoon and Heenan were the greatest face/heel announce team ever. Heenan's reaction when Flair came out #3, knowing full well that Hogan and Taker were somewhere from 20-30, was priceless. The constant holding out hope on Heenan's part. Fantastic.

3. Hogan over Taker. With the WWF title having gone back and forth between them, the stage was set for these two men to have another showdown. In this case, Hogan rightfully got the best of the deadman, signifying a temporary end to their feud, partially due to the unexpected Taker face turn a few months later.

4. The Justice Heel Turn. Hogan and Justice were a hell of a team in the months leading up to the Rumble. The pose downs they did together made people think there were new "Mega-Powers" in town. But Justice remembered the catch phrase of the Rumble, "Every Man for Himself." With Hogan jawing by the ropes, Justice shocked the world by eliminating him. Instant heel turn. Hogan then grabs Justices arm, resulting in...

5. The arrival of Ric Flair. Seeing Flair with the WWF Title for the first time and the end of "The Big Gold Belt" proclaiming himself the "Real World's Champion" legitimized Flair in many fans eyes, and also signified the arrival of Flair as a major part of WWF. It also signified to people that we may FINALLY see the Flair vs Hogan showdown at Wrestlemania, though it never happened.

A few other cool moments included: Flair breaking Martel's record for longest participation in the match, Savage forgetting the top rope rule and valuting over the ropes after Roberts, only to be allowed back in the ring since he hadn't been "propelled" by anyone, and Hercules lasting less than a minute.

[Mighty NorCal]

IC :disappointed: I see that you as well, have been swept into that highly overrated rumble. YEA I SAID IT.

Basically all you have with that Rumble, besides the utterly fantastic commentary, is an hour of punches and kicks. No, seriously. put in the DVD, and watch it right now. There are all of 4 or five moves in the entire thing that arent a punch, kick, or a chop. If it wouldnt have been for the commentary, that thing would be downright laborious. I know this becuase Ive watched it numerous times within the last month or so.

The 2002 version however, had MUCH higher entertainment value, and insanely hot crowd, and the return of Mr.Perfect. You saw it ALL here, from finishers, to brutal eliminations, to the return of Triple H, to Austin dominating.

I also loved 97, with the three faces of foley, Austin dominating until Bret Hart came out to whup ass, and the hilarious finish. a close second to me.

[IC25]

IC :disappointed: I see that you as well, have been swept into that highly overrated rumble. YEA I SAID IT.

Bring it on, biotch.

Basically all you have with that Rumble, besides the utterly fantastic commentary, is an hour of punches and kicks. No, seriously. put in the DVD, and watch it right now. There are all of 4 or five moves in the entire thing that arent a punch, kick, or a chop.

It's a Royal Rumble. There were usually more than 6 guys in the ring at once. Doesn't leave room for much more than simpler wear down moves until you were able to set up the top rope throw. In essence, this was more realistic. In a match where you lose if you go over the ropes, the idea would be to keep yourself as grounded as possible, so high spots and finishers that leave you prone are just foolish.

The 2002 version however, had MUCH higher entertainment value, and insanely hot crowd, and the return of Mr.Perfect. You saw it ALL here, from finishers, to brutal eliminations, to the return of Triple H, to Austin dominating.

2002 was my 2nd choice because of the sheer star power that existed in the match. Probably the most stacked line up ever. But HHH's win was so predictable. EVERYBODY saw HHH winning the Rumble, and it coming down to him and Angle. But in 1992, NOBODY saw Flair winning that thing, at a time when coming in at the 3 spot and winning was IMPOSSIBLE, before Michaels and Austin played it out.

I also loved 97, with the three faces of foley, Austin dominating until Bret Hart came out to whup ass, and the hilarious finish. a close second to me.

The 2nd biggest match of the year won by a guy who should never have won. Cheating to win the match - getting eliminated and "the ref's don't see it." And apparently NO backup refs in the locker room to run down and reverse it!? Then let's take into account the fact that Austin won the thing and the ensuing aftermath made NO SENSE. Austin would up getting Bret Hart at Wrestlemania, and Sid (who regained the title after a lot of title changes) wound up facing The Undertaker, who incidentally LOST AT THE ROYAL RUMBLE TO...VADER!!!! The Vader win gives this event SOME pop. Mick Foley getting 3 entries is such a BS cop out. You mean to tell me they didn't have two more stars to put in there? Well, at least it was funny.

Norcal, it's ok to be wrong - you'll get over it.

[Mighty NorCal]

Im not wrong. Besides the epic commentary, RR 91 sucked. straight up, son LOL. The trick to using the moves and high spots in the match, would be to do them in a contextual manner that is logical, as was done in later iterations of the Rumble. You know, to make it more entertaining than an hour of punching, kicking, and chopping. Im tellin ya. Watch the match on mute. Not that great. Heenan carries that Rumble LOL

[IC25]

Im not wrong. Besides the epic commentary, RR 91 sucked. straight up, son LOL. The trick to using the moves and high spots in the match, would be to do them in a contextual manner that is logical, as was done in later iterations of the Rumble. You know, to make it more entertaining than an hour of punching, kicking, and chopping. Im tellin ya. Watch the match on mute. Not that great. Heenan carries that Rumble LOL

Watching any WWE match on mute is boring and non-sensical unless you are a) there, or b) doing the commentary yourself.

The dynamic of WWE matches have changes significantly over the past few years in ALL matches. Around the early 90's, a lot of matches involved punches, kicks, chops, and rest holds with a few big spots and a winner. WWE also focused on the match building up it's participants, as opposed to the current style of the rumble where guys get eliminated too quickly and there are often only 3-4 guys in the ring.

It's another case of the attention span of a wrestling fan waning. Think of it this way:

In 1992, entrants came in every 2 minutes. Ric Flair broke the record by being in there for 59:26.

In 1993, entrants came in every 2 minutes. Bob Backlund broke the record by being in there for 61:10.

In 1994, entrants came in every 90 seconds. Longest tenure in the match was Bam Bam Bigelow at 30:12.

In 1995, entrants came in every 60 seconds. Longest match tenure were, of course, Shawn Michaels and Davey Boy Smith at 38:41, which was the ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE MATCH!

In 1996, we are back to 2 minutes. Longest tenure in the match was Hunter Hearst Helmsley at an impressive 48:01.

NOW let's look at your precious 2002 match. Entrants came out every 2 minutes again. Longest match tenure was 26:46 - Steve Austin. HHH, the winner, was in for 23:14. That is DESPITE 2 minutes between entrants. Eliminations occured so fast, that so few guys were actually in the ring, and that's why silly spots could take place. Royal Rumble is supposed to be a marathon - a war of attrition. 2002 was anything but. AND it was predictable.

[Mighty NorCal]

While im sure everyone is VEERRYY impressed with your posting of a bunch of numbers and stats that have absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about, im not :lmao:

Maybe, the WWE booked the latter rumbles to have faster eliminations to all ow for more entertaining spots no?? I get so sick of people claiming that just becuase of something being done back in the old school, and it being done in the old school way, that its excused from being held to a standard. Me not being entertained by an hour of punches, chops, and kicks, has nothing to do with my attenion span IC, it has to do with something being booked in a boring fashion. It has nothing to do with the changing of the time, from then until modern day, becuase the 1990 rumble, was absurdly entertaining. Why?? One part of it, being a spot between Warrior and Hogan, among other things. Just becuase it is old doesnt excuse it, as other Rumbles were booked better, even prior to this one.

And your right in saying it was totally logical to book it that way, becuase it was. If your planning on having a guy make it that far and live to see the end, there can be a whole lot more than punching and kicking going on. Still doent make it entertaining. Just like in 2005, when Mysterio won it, after laying on the ground for 35 fucking minutes. Logical. Not entertaining.

[IC25]

Ok, fair enough. The "attention span" arguement is a little soapbox of my own that I do not expect a lot of people to climb on, but I still notice that, in the last 8-10 years, wrestling fans in general have become more sanguine for blood, high spots, finishing moves, etc. as opposed to what amounts to logical sense and hard work.

Let's get into Kayfabe mode for a moment. As a wrestling fan using my willing suspension of disbelief, I have a great deal more respect for Ric Flair's performance in the 1992 Rumble vs HHH's in the 2002 Rumble. What a difference a decade makes. Flair wrestled TWICE as long as HHH did and won a Royal Rumble he was never expected to win at a time when nobody could feasibly win the thing with a #3 draw.

Now, outside of Kayfabe, what kind of appreciable drama did the 2002 Rumble give us? It was 30+ minutes of planned spots leading to the inevitable HHH / Angle showdown and HHH victory. No shock, no intregue. Hell, even 1994 gave us the confusion of the "dual-winner" with Hart and Luger. And at least 1995, short as it was, gave us the Michaels / Bulldog wire to wire war and controversial "both feet finish." But HHH in 2002? Knew it was coming. And I will gladly take some slower paced punches and kicks as opposed to an obvious script ANY day of the week, which is why Rumble '92 is far superior to Rumble '02.

On a side note, Norcal, we should go at each other more often.

[Mighty NorCal]

Ok, fair enough. The "attention span" arguement is a little soapbox of my own that I do not expect a lot of people to climb on, but I still notice that, in the last 8-10 years, wrestling fans in general have become more sanguine for blood, high spots, finishing moves, etc. as opposed to what amounts to logical sense and hard work.
.

This is 100% true. You will get no argument outta me on that. I just see a lot of blanket passes given to old stuff by people (not you, but many others)...it just seems like Old/slow/boring automatically = GOOD, as long as it was done before 1993. which is bullshit.



Let's get into Kayfabe mode for a moment. As a wrestling fan using my willing suspension of disbelief, I have a great deal more respect for Ric Flair's performance in the 1992 Rumble vs HHH's in the 2002 Rumble. What a difference a decade makes. Flair wrestled TWICE as long as HHH did and won a Royal Rumble he was never expected to win at a time when nobody could feasibly win the thing with a #3 draw.


True, I will give you that in a second. A decade doesnt make me respect the effort it took to do what Flair did any less. And yes, I totally accpet the shock value and craziness of someone doing what he did at the time (personally, I think they have totally bastardized and whored out the whole win from number 1 thing)...still doesnt make it more entertaining though...



Now, outside of Kayfabe, what kind of appreciable drama did the 2002 Rumble give us? It was 30+ minutes of planned spots leading to the inevitable HHH / Angle showdown and HHH victory. No shock, no intregue. Hell, even 1994 gave us the confusion of the "dual-winner" with Hart and Luger. And at least 1995, short as it was, gave us the Michaels / Bulldog wire to wire war and controversial "both feet finish." But HHH in 2002? Knew it was coming. And I will gladly take some slower paced punches and kicks as opposed to an obvious script ANY day of the week, which is why Rumble '92 is far superior to Rumble '02.

The same drama any action movie, or tale will give you. You can always figure out that Rocky will win, that Batman will escape and prevail, that our super hero who worked and strived to come back will come through in the end. A repetitive and regularly used storyline?? yes, of course. Doesnt make the road to get to that point any less entertaining. Thats what makes, movies, stories, and pro wrestling (for the most part) entertaining. The hero will win, most probably, and we all know this. Doesnt make the road getting there any less entertaining. Dont be a smark IC. Just becuase there was an "unpredictable" finish with a heel winning, doesnt make the whole road getting there more entertaining, and certainley not more entertaining than 2002.


On a side note, Norcal, we should go at each other more often.

Was a good show my good sir. We just happen to agree a lot tho LOL

[Y 2 Jake]

There are only two Rumbles that I would consider great. Most are entertaining. But bar the 1992 & 2007 I wouldn't say the others are anything other than just good. Most have had several great moments. But as a collective match a lot aren't special.

The 2004 Rumble was good. But it wasn't great. Benoit winning was great. But there was nothing special about the entire match. Benoit for the most part was just another wrestler till the end, he didn't stand out. He didn't carry the match from start to finish like Flair & HBK had done in the past.

The 1999 Rumble was good. But it was pretty much Austin vs. McMahon for an hour. Bar the shock ending the match wasn't great. Entertaining. But not what I would consider a classic.

The 1992 Rumble is probably the best. Maybe because it was Flair's last great performance. The 2007 Rumble was also great. Mostly down to the final few minutes. Before that it was like the other, entertaining but nothing special. The HBK & Undertaker exchanges made that one great.

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

Man, this is tough. So many RR matches had either horrible finishes with nice action, or horrible action with great finishes.

Examples:

1994 - Not too bad, not too great. The ending was done rather well...outside of how horribly they toyed with the double idea. How many times did we have to sit through "the winner of the 1994 Royal Rumble!!............*Fink walks away*......Ladies and gentlemen...the winner, of the 1994 Royal Rumble.........*walks away*...."

1995 - Boring as all hell, but a FANTASTIC ending. Michaels is the man for sticking that landing the way he did.

1996 - It was clear that Michaels was going to win, so it was almost a waiting game. Also, Vader eliminates everyone, then it doesn't count, but it does every other year. Stupid segment.

1997 - One of the coolest endings, as it pushed Austin as a real asshole. However, half of this rumble match consists of Mexican wrestlers that mean absolutely nothing, or jobbers. Isn't this the one where Ahmed Johnson throws himself out, too?

1998 - Loved the Foley-Trio.

1999 - It just never sat right with me that the last two people weren't even in it most of the time. That was just retarded.

I wasn't watching wrestling for a while, so I never got to see the 2000-2006 Rumble matches outside of looking them up on YouTube a while back, so I can't comment on how they'd feel to me if it was a live thing going on...but one thing I can't stand is how often they do the distance now. Benoit and Mysterio didn't deserve to win from #1 and #2 (or was it 3 for Mysterio? I forget)

2007 was a good Royal Rumble. No real complaints. They ended it with four guys that could've won, so it wasn't one of those "well look at this, its over" situations.

2008......well.....no, lol. The highlights of the rumble in my opinion was how well Morrison handled himself, Cena coming back (despite not being a fan of him, it was still a shock), and Michaels running from Taker. Too many flubs in this thing for me to take it seriously. Hornswoggle eliminating Miz...Khali being thrown out very quickly...Shelton having no time basically...no true "final four" as it went from 5 to 3 in like a second flat...and, despite it being one of the highlights, as soon as Cena came back, you knew he'd win it, so its a double-edged sword.

Will 2009 be it? Lol. Who knows. Still, despite my criticism, the Royal Rumble is my favorite match the WWE does and I've always been a huge fan of it. I look forward to it a little more than the WrestleMania card, even.