Did WWF Pick The Right Winners?: Royal Rumble

[Y 2 Jake]

1989: Big John Studd

Of cause not. Really what did Studd ever do? They should have given the oppertunity to somebody like Dibiase or Rick Rude.

1990: Hulk Hogan

No. What was the point. He was the champion at the time (I believe) I would have let Mr. Perfect, Dibiase, Rude or The Ultimate Warrior win.

1991: Hulk Hogan

Yeas. Other than Savage there wasn't really anybody who was worthy of winning. Certainly not The Undertaker or Earthquake.

1992: Ric Flair

Hell yeah. With out Flair that Rumble wouldn't have been that special. And the ending and the fact it was for the title made it all the better.

1993: Yokozuna

I suppose. He had that whole monster heel thing down pretty good. Again I think Savage should have won. But Yoko looked impressive when he easily eliminated people.

1994: Bret Hart & Lex Luger

No. WWE should have chosen one wrestler. Be it Bret Hart or Lex Luger.

1995: Shawn Michaels

I suppose. Diesel looked more impressive. And the crowd wanted the Bulldog to win. He hardly had an intresting year, it didn't do that much for him.

1996: Shawn Michaels

Yes. He should have been a world champ the previous year. But better late than never.

1997: Steve Austin

Well he didn't really win. But I think that was one of the years when there was a real choice. Bret Hart, Austin, Taker, Vader and Mankind. Not a bad choice though.

1998: Steve Austin

Hell yeah. I love how Austin was super over and the fans just needed him to win. Unlike when HBK had to wait a year for his W.M. title victory, Austins was worth the wait.

1999: Vince McMahon

Yeah. You couldn't ask for more heat. And everyone knew Austin would headline W.M. anyway.

2000: The Rock

Lame Rumble. the only other option was Big Show. So yeah the right choice IMO.

2001: Steve Austin

I guess. Either him or The Rock. Neither would have been a bad option

2002: Triple H

Yeah. After his return he couldn't have been more over. Well him or Angle.

2003: Brock Lesnar

At the time yes. But he left less than 18 months later. So looking back Booker should have won it.

2004: Chris Benoit

I guess. I dont think Benoit made himself stand out in that match. And I was kind of surprised he won. Orton did a better job of looking good in that match.

2005: Batista

Fuck no. It should have been Cena. He's younger and he can talk. The build up to Batista/HHH bored the shit out of me. The build up to Cena/JBL was better. And who's the bigger star now? Cena

2006: Rey Mysterio

Meh. Either HHH, Rey or Orton would have been fine. Wasn't it like the 10th match he's dedicated to Eddie Guerrero? Like Benoit 2 years previous I dont think he really stood out in the match. I loved how HHH came out 1st and Rey (the winner) had to come out 2nd.

2007: The Undertaker

There was only really 2 opyions and that was HBK & Taker. Michaels has won it before so yeah thay made the right choice.

 

[Prax]

The 2006 Rumble was one of my favorite, Triple H wrecked havoc in it until the end. I was kind of disappointed with Rey winning it to tell you the truth, I kinda felt like since Eddie died, God rest his soul, everything had been handed down to him on a silver platter. Triple H and Orton were MUCH more impressive in that rumble and they could've used it to really make Orton a bonafide star. Rey was already on his way to stardom. Give Orton a win like that and he might've turned our different.

 

[thraxiusrex]

If Dibiase had won the Rumble when he paid to be #30, his heat would have been HUGE. Definately dropped the ball on that. In losing he was just another heel who finds out underhandedness doesn't pay blah blah blah.

It's no diss on Rey to say that things have been given to him, same with Chavo. It's just Vince taking advantage of every angle he can get his hands on, none of the boys' fault. And don't even get me started on the shit with Vickie. Also, it was a little unbelievable that Rey could physically win the rumble.

I'm divided on the 99 rumble. Part of me wishes it could have been booked roughly the same, with Vince being responsible for Austin's elimination, but with one of the top heels getting the actual victory because of it. But then, the actual heat that the Rock and Vince got made for such a great lead-in to WM that I guess it was worth it.

 

[Shocky]

1989: Agree with either DiBiase or Perfect. DiBiase buying #30 would have won him the rumble ten years later in the attitude Era. I'll defend it with Studd by saying, at least it wasn't Andre or Hogan that won.

1990: Hogan. I agree with this pick, simply because the Rumble as a pay per view was still in its infancy, the winner gained nothing, and something needed to be done to give it credibility and a goal for someone to want to achieve.

1991: Hogan. Again, wise decision. The rumble winner gets jack shit, and this was still being established as a big Event. Hogan winning it back to back shows that it takes a tough S.o.B. to win this thing.

1992: Flair. Amazing choice. The first time the Rumble winner got anything, and it was the world title. I remember watching it live, and I coulda swore that Hogan or Sid was going to win. Flair was a curveball .This was followed up by the monumental fuck up of not having Flair vs. Hogan in the Main Event at WM. 8

1993: Yokozuna. The Steroid era was over, and this was vinces new "big man". Zuna was a monster heel, and this was the right choice.

1994: Split winners suck with Hart and Luger. I guess it's a small miracle it worked out this way though. By all rumors, Luger was supposed to win at WM X, but thanks to his fuck up, and the WWE's fuck up by having two Rumble winners, Hart Saves the day.

1995: HBK: The worst year ever for the WWF. Michaels wasn't to bad of a choice. I love the Bulldog, but there was no way he would have main evented a Wrestlemania.

1996: HBK: Great Choice. It sets up a very anticipated matchup with Bret Hart at WM 12, that (insert flame shield) failed to deliver in an iron man match full of 45 minutes of rest holds.

1997: SCSA. Great choice. The man was a thorn in Hart's side, and this set up the incredible match. Hart wins the rumble, but the refs don't see Austin hit the floor. Austin comes back ina nd dumps Hart over the ringrope, great ending.

1998: SCSA. The best choice again. While the 3 faces of Foley was funny, Austin was white hot and no one else could have won this.

1999: McMahon. UH oh. I remember the forum scene after this. People were pissed off to high hell, but 8 years later it looks like a stroke of genius. I don't like the idea of McMahon holding any world title or Rumble victory, but you can't deny, it's instant heat.

2000: The Rock. It was either him or the Big Slow. Everyone was injured that could have won it besides these two, and you had Foley and Triple H in the main event.

2001: Steve Austin. Austin coming off of a year long injury, best choice for this year. It sets up the best WM ever.

2002: Triple H. Another guy coming back from a year long injury. This was perfect timing. While personally i would have loved to see Angle win this, there was no way in hell that anyone besides Triple H was winning this match.

2003: Brock Lesnar. I don't buy the whole Brock shouldn't have won because he was gone 18 months later arguement. Brock Lesnar was white hot when he broke in, and his rookie year may never be match again by anyone. Lesnar had insane crowd reactions for a guy at the tim was only in the business for a year.

2004: Chris Benoit. I felt Benoit looked real good in this match. The WWE did a real good job at making sure Benoit eliminated all of the monsters in the Match. Anyone that goes an hour in the rumble is impressive.

2005: Batista: Uh oh, the shit era of WWE wrestling begins here. So, much like wiht the recent Batista/Taker Cage match, Tista can't hit the ground right, so they have to restart the match. Vince popping both his quads while shitty, was hilarious. Honestly though, WWE fucked up on this one. They rushed getting Orton the title just to spite Brock Lesnar, therefore fucking up royally WM 21's main event.

2006: Rey Mysterio: Yay, lets capitalize on the death of Eddie Guerrero some more. While it was cool to see him do this, they didn't capitalize by putting him in the Main Event of Wrestlemania.

2007: Taker. Thank god this guy gets this at the end of his career. It was only a two horse race this year between him and Michaels. Again, a royal fuck up by not putting the Rumble winner in the Main Event at Wrestlemania.

2008: If it's anyone besides Kennedy, it willb e a mistake.

 

[A.J.]

Well you have to say WWE been really wise when it comes to teh rumble as more than most time they pic the right person to win the rumble except for 1989,1994,2005, and 2006 other than that it has been great descions by WWE.

Batista winning was a joke as they should have had Cena even though i dislike the man, he was the younger and is the future not Batista so a waste there. I mean its not like the Rumble winner get the main event at Wrestlemania anymore so they could have Cena win. I mean a JBL and Cena main eventing 21 is better than HHH vs Batista.

Rey winning wasa joke i swear Vince can he a horses ass at time i mean they wouldnt let the Eddie thing rest. I'm nottaking away from what Rey has done but i doubthe would have won the rumble and the WHC if Eddie didnt die a shame yes but using Eddie in any storyline is distasteful. As Orton should have won and i think he was oringinal anyways if Batitsa didnt get hurt but ya bad move but still smart as Rey was huge in the fans eyes.

So most of the time WWE gets it right most of time so we cant knock them for that much.

 

[TheLoneWolf]

I think pretty much everyone who has one the rumble pretty much deserved. I loved when Triple H won it after returning from the surgery, even though I would've liked for Mr. Perfect to have it won it. Rey Mysterio shouldn't have won it because I think WWE way over-used Eddie Guerrero after his passing and it was just stupid.