Break Through Battle Royal at WrestleMania?

[RkoMachine]

If this is been done before i am sorry and please move it to the correct thread

So i know this is something that has been discussed before but to my knowledge a thread hasn't been made about it (like i said if it has i am sorry, i looked and couldn't find it)

The break through battle royal was seen on RAW a while back with Sheamus winning and eventually winning the title from Cena at TLC

I love the concept of this match because you can't participate if you have been world champ before

So why not have this held at Mania every year to replace money in the bank? It seems an upcoming star is always pushed after mania anyway (last year Swagger this year Truth) might as well have this match and have whoever wins get a title shot in the near future

So what do you guys think? should this happen at Mania every year?

 

[THTRobtaylor]

To be honest I think they should make this "The Royal Rumble" rule... that no former WM main eventers can participate... that way, you are guaranteed a "cinderella story" each year, whether they win the title or not. Alternatively, I'd just prefer they bring back KOTR as a Pay Per View and use the rule there...

 

[THE Great GAMMA]

Agree the Rob. But i also think that it would detract from the Royal Rumble if they had something like that at WM.

 

[TheKingHustla]

To be honest I think they should make this "The Royal Rumble" rule... that no former WM main eventers can participate... that way, you are guaranteed a "cinderella story" each year, whether they win the title or not. Alternatively, I'd just prefer they bring back KOTR as a Pay Per View and use the rule there...

The problem with this is that it would take away from the casual fans interest in the rumble. Yeah, guys like you and other internet guys might want to see it, but a royal rumble with no "big names" would do more harm than good. That's what the MITB is for. To give the up and comers a title shot. The reason why that works, is that its believable. Give a midcarder a chance to challenge a champion when he is beaten down, gives him more of a chance to win. Usually, for the rumble, the WWE goes bigger, even bringing in past superstars to get that big name feel, so I highly doubt that it would be beneficial to the overall product if they actually went smaller.

And yeah, Cinderella Stories are nice sometimes, but at Wrestlemania, the biggest pay per view of the year, you have to bring out all of your biggest guns. That's why Undertaker crawls his dead ass out of his coffin once again, The Rock stops filming his next car movie(does he drive cars in almost every movie he's in now? Race to Witch Mountain, Faster, Fast Five) and why Triple H carries his beat up, surgically repaired body to the ring. It's very short sighted but it's always been that way.

 

[MMK]

While I am all in favor of a Battle Royal at Wrestlemania, I don't think you can have a literal "Breakthrough Star" match of any sort. To become a breakout star, you have to actually breakthrough with the crowd naturally. It can't be a tangible title or trophy artificially awarded to someone. In fact, any time WWE labels a guy as the next breakout star, more times than not that guy falls flat on his face. It has to occur naturally, not via winning a battle royal or any other type of match. It's up to the fans to decide who the breakout stars are going to be. Not the bookers. If the fans start to unexpectedly pull for one particular wrestler, than theres your breakout star. Not the winner of a battle royal determined by Vince or anyone else.

But I do support having a battle royal at Wrestlemania. A serious one. Not some dark match full of jobbers. Im talking about bringing back the battle royal tradition they had at Wrestlemania 2 and 4. Perhaps battle royals are a bit outdated, but I don't think so. They can still work. Whenever they have one on RAW the crowd pops pretty loud.