Is the Royal rumble not as significant?

[wooooo]

Elimination chamber has played a big part in ruining it in my opinion along with the two world titles, also having the last 2 rumble winners be the opening match of Mania

[FlairFan2003]

Originally Posted by Dagger Dias

The Royal Rumble stopped being as significant around 2006. Before I get into that, let's take a look at the winners as well as what each of them did at Wrestlemania that year.


1988 - Jim Duggan
Loses to Ted Dibiase in a non-title match, does not main event

1989 - Big John Studd
Ref for Jake Roberts VS Andre in match that does not main event, he does not work a match himself

1990 - Hulk Hogan
Main events but loses to Ultimate Warrior

1991 - Hulk Hogan
Main events and defeats Slaughter for WWF Championship

1992 - Ric Flair
Loses WWF Championship to Randy Savage, does not main event

1993 - Yokozuna
Main events and wins WWF Championship from Bret Hart but loses it to Hogan immediately afterward

1994 #1 - Lex Luger
Loses to Yokozuna, does not main event

1994 #2 - Bret Hart
Wins WWF Championship from Yokozuna in main event after having opened with Owen earlier

1995 - Shawn Michaels
Loses to Diesel, does not main event

1996 - Shawn Michaels
Won WWF Championship in main event

1997 - Steve Austin
Loses to Bret Hart, does not main event

1998 - Steve Austin
Won WWF Championship in main event

1999 - Vince McMahon
Did not compete

2000 - The Rock
Loses to Triple H in main event

2001 - Steve Austin
Won WWF Championship in main event

2002 - Triple H
Won Undisputed Championship in main event

2003 - Brock Lesnar
Won WWE Championship in main event

2004 - Chris Benoit
Won World Championship in main event

2005 - Batista
Won World Championship in main event

2006 - Rey
Won World Championship but did not main event

2007 - Undertaker
Won World Championship but did not main event

2008 - John Cena
Loses to Randy Orton and does not main event

2009 - Randy Orton
Loses to Triple H in main event

2010 - Edge
Loses to Jericho and does not main event

2011 - Alberto Del Rio
Loses to Edge in first match, does not main event

2012 - Sheamus
Won World Championship in first match, does not main event



10 of 26 Rumble winners main evented AND won a world title at that year's Wrestlemania
9 of 21 if you only include those from after the world title shots began in 1993

13 of 26 Rumble winners went on to main event that year's Wrestlemania
11 of 21 if you only include those from after the world title shots began in 1993

13 of 26 Rumble winners won a world title at that year's Wrestlemania
12 of 21 if you only include those from after the world title shots began in 1993


It was in 2006 when the Rumble began seeming less and less significant to me. The last time we saw a Royal Rumble winner main event AND win a world title at Wrestlemania was with Batista in 2005. Rey in 2006, Taker in 2007, and Sheamus in 2012 won world titles but did not main event. Randy Orton in 2009 main events but loses. John Cena in 2008 and Edge in 2010 lost and did not main event. Alberto Del Rio dealt the most damage to the Rumble's prestige in years by losing in the opening match.

.

People fail to acknowledge that at an event as big as WrestleMania, the success of the PPV rests on multiple high profile matches, not just the main event (which drives most of the success for other PPV). Does anyone doubt for one minute the impact the last two HHH-Taker matches had on the success of the most recent WrestleManias even if they did not get the last match ? How about WM 18 which was built heavily around Flair-Taker & Rock-Hogan, niether of which got the last match ? Certainly the World Title Match at WM 8 got more promotion and was a bigger selling point to that PPV regardless of who got the last match ? At WM 25 was there anyone who didnt think HBK-Taker was a huge selling point despite not getting the last match ?

Also, why does the RR winner have to win the title at WrestleMania for the actual winning of the title shot to continue to be important ? If every RR winner went on to win the World Title at WM wouldnt it then cease to be important, a foregone conclusion that your next World Champion is the current RR winner ? The fact that in almost every instance the RR winner played a significant role in the success of WM shows the importance of that event.

Finally, a lot of factors go into determining the match placement at an event like WM, the largest being WWE's desire to control crowd response. You dont typically have the last 3 matches be the most important to the event for instance, you space the "big" matches out throughout the show. You also put less interesting matches in between "big" matches when you worry that the crowd might have a hard time getting into the next bout after a particularly entertaining or emotional match. You can see over the six weeks leading into WM what the marquee matches are regardless of how the are placed on the card, and we all remember the instances when match placement failed (Like having Jericho-HHH follow the emotional Rock-Hogan or having Hogan-Sid get the last slot at WM 8, ending the show with a dud)

Also, prior to 1992 the RR wasnt a marquee event so looking at the WM history of winners from 88-91 doesnt make sense. 1992, when the winner was declared World Champion, was the first time the actual RR match itself was a major event. 1993 started the RR winner = WM title shot plot line.

[#MrScissorsKick]

The overall prestige of the Royal Rumble PPV and match has run it's course. I'm probably preaching to the crowd here because the RR was/is my favorite wrestling event of all time when I was much younger. The Rumble is still my favorite PPV in my opinion, because it not only sets the stage for the rest of the year but it sets up the main event at WrestleMania (Not always but historically speaking it does/did). I mean think about it, 30 guys wanting a shot to main event WM? How does one not get amped up for that? Don't get me wrong, the last 2 RR winners were pretty stale. Alberto's win made the RR PPV seem weak. Sheamus had a good run with the WHC this year and his character helped him get some prestige overall after winning the RR. Why is the RR slowly losing credibility? Money in the bank is one reason. Once the MITB went to a PPV, the RR has never felt so meaningless. The RR winner gets a shot to main event WM. The MITB winner(s) can get a title shot at anytime during the course of 1 calendar year. I think however, the IWC has shifted from the historic and drama from just the overall RR event. It hasn't had the same winning feeling since MITB has started. Thing is, like others have said, that the RR winner as of late can be easily predicted. Years back, it wasn't so predictable. That doesn't mean that the RR can be boring or whatnot.

[SDS1582]

Well, with the recent injury of CM, if it's real and if it's long term, WWE has a great opportunity to regain some significance for the Rumble.

They can make the actual Rumble Match itself be for the WWE title. If the plan was for The Rock to win the belt then they can still have him win the Royal Rumble for the WWE title. This also solves their problem of whether to have the championship match before or after the rumble match itself. I know normally they have the Rumble match itself last, but I have a hard time believing Rock vs. Punk would go on before the Rumble match but now, that's solved, if Punk is out.

[Mitch H. Winnfield]

For me, Taker winning the Rumble in '07, and going on to defeat Batista for the WHC at Wrestlemania 23 was the last time the Rumble really meant something. The finish between Taker and HBK during that Rumble was just fantastic. Taker and HBK beat the hell out of each other, and you could feel the strong sense of urgency from both men. Plus, Taker arguably had the best match on the card with Batista during Mania 23.

Cena used his Rumble win to face Orton at No Way Out in '08, and Orton had an underwhelming main event match with Triple H one year later. Sure, along the way we saw some incredible pops for big returns (Cena and Edge), but Rumble victories just don't have the same impact anymore.

It's already been mentioned, but the Chamber matches before Mania really kill any interest in the Rumble winner. We all now at least one winner from a Chamber match will go on to face a world champion at Wrestlemania, so why should we care about the Rumble winner?

I still enjoy watching the Rumble matches, but the prestige is just dead for me. Wrestlemania 28 was all about Rock VS Cena and Taker VS HHH, Mania 27 was all about the Rock guest hosting, Miz and Cena, Taker and HHH. And the streak vs Shawn Michaels' career overshadowed everything at Mania 26. Rumble winners continue to take a backseat to Chamber winners and more prominent storylines at Wrestlemania, and this trend isn't going to change anytime soon.