A difference between the earlier and current Rumbles

[SD619]

As I was watching the Royal Rumble '92, one thing that struck out was the lack of finishers. As far as I remember the Figure Four was used twice (for short durations; once on Flair) and Hogan used a Big Boot (NOT followed by the leg drop). Other than that, the whole match was full of punches, kicks, chops, slams etc.

Now comparing that to the current Rumbles, every-time a major guy enters, he goes on a spree of finishers (Orton RKOing everyone/Edge Spearing everyone etc).

Which one do you prefer?

 

[Nate DaMac]

The latter.

 

[PlayTheGame]

Hmm...

less action/less exciting

OR

more action/more exciting

...

I'll get back to you

 

[Slyfox696]

Hmm...

less action/less exciting

OR

more action/more exciting

...

I'll get back to you

Better storytelling

OR

Cheap pops



I can see why you'd have to think about it.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Essentially now, they try to incorporate more spots and technical manoeuvres. You can clearly see when something was set up to happen at a certain point. Before then you'd have guys segregated into huddles bleeding stamina trying to be more realistic and actually get a guy out of the ring instead of expending all of their energy using their finisher on them and not being able to follow up be eliminating.

Tough one, a subtle combination of both please.

 

[PlayTheGame]

Better storytelling

OR

Cheap pops



I can see why you'd have to think about it.

yeah, punches are GREAT storytelling.

 

[Slyfox696]

yeah, punches are GREAT storytelling.

In a Royal RUMBLE...yeah, it's a good start. Tell me, when was the last time you saw a suplex in a benches clearing brawl in baseball?


Of course, that wasn't even my point, but since you bring it up, it makes a lot more sense than what happens today.

 

[PlayTheGame]

Lol, let's not compare a real fight to wrestling. Wrestling does many absurd things, I think a lack of punches in a Royal RUMBLE is forgivable.

Another forgivable and rather exciting thing is to see flashy finishers, cheap pops as you call them. The RR is a mess, so the more flashiness and the crazier it is, the better it comes off. It's supposed to be a mess of a match, probably the one match per year that can get away with being such. A flurry of finishers just makes it more wild.

 

[Slyfox696]

Lol, let's not compare a real fight to wrestling. Wrestling does many absurd things, I think a lack of punches in a Royal RUMBLE is forgivable.

Doesn't change what I said about better storytelling though.

Punches and kicks are more realistic in that type of a match than a classic singles match due to the large number of wrestlers involved. Furthermore, because the match lacks the cheap pop from finishers, it has to build the heat using good pro wrestling.

My favorite example of this is Royal Rumble 1990. There are SO many great moments in this match. From the very beginning, DiBiase has to pay for purchasing the 30th spot the year before by being the first entrant. But he eliminates a couple of his early opponents, usually by jumping them before they can get in the ring and ready to fight, which causes dislike from the fans. And when Jake Roberts music comes over the speakers, that place pops like crazy. I'm talking Stone Cold in a beer truck crazy. DiBiase also has many moments where he ALMOST goes over, just to slither back in, so when Warrior finally eliminates him, the place pops huge again.

Why did the crowd pop? Was it because of a cheap pop from a finisher? No, it was because the match had built the heat, and given the fans a reason to care what happened to DiBiase and a reason to cheer when he was eliminated. That's storytelling.

Another forgivable and rather exciting thing is to see flashy finishers, cheap pops as you call them. The RR is a mess, so the more flashiness and the crazier it is, the better it comes off. It's supposed to be a mess of a match, probably the one match per year that can get away with being such. A flurry of finishers just makes it more wild.

You've yet to refute my point.

 

[SD619]

If anyone sees the current Rumbles (mostly spotfests) and then the older Rumbles, the older Rumbles will unfortunately seen a bit flat.

 

[PlayTheGame]

Doesn't change what I said about better storytelling though.

Punches and kicks are more realistic in that type of a match than a classic singles match due to the large number of wrestlers involved. Furthermore, because the match lacks the cheap pop from finishers, it has to build the heat using good pro wrestling.

My favorite example of this is Royal Rumble 1990. There are SO many great moments in this match. From the very beginning, DiBiase has to pay for purchasing the 30th spot the year before by being the first entrant. But he eliminates a couple of his early opponents, usually by jumping them before they can get in the ring and ready to fight, which causes dislike from the fans. And when Jake Roberts music comes over the speakers, that place pops like crazy. I'm talking Stone Cold in a beer truck crazy. DiBiase also has many moments where he ALMOST goes over, just to slither back in, so when Warrior finally eliminates him, the place pops huge again.

Why did the crowd pop? Was it because of a cheap pop from a finisher? No, it was because the match had built the heat, and given the fans a reason to care what happened to DiBiase and a reason to cheer when he was eliminated. That's storytelling.

You've yet to refute my point.

Not necessarily trying to refute anyone's point, just sharing my own. I haven't seen that particular Rumble but it sounds good. As SD says, they are now full of spots, and although I'm not a huge fan of spots, I like them in certain matches that naturally foster them, such as the Rumble, a MiTB match, etc.