Is being runner up in the Royal Rumble is just as good as winning it?

[Blade]

Since the Undisputed championship was split into 2 titles, there have been 2 world title matches every Wrestlemania, from Mania 19 to Mania 26. During this time, one of WWE's oldest traditions, the Royal Rumble has still be going on with the winner getting a title match at Wrestlemania for a world title of their choosing.

Winning the Royal Rumble is a big deal, the winner is guarenteed their world title shot. We're led to believe that the runner up might not get a title shot at Wrestlemania, but looking at the last few years, this hasn't been entirely true.

Royal Rumble 2010: Edge won, Cena was the runner up. Cena still got the WWE title match.

Royal Rumble 2009: Orton won, Triple H was the runner up. Triple H actually ended up WWE champion going into Wrestlemania.

Royal Rumble 2008: Cena won, Triple H was the runner up. Both men ended up in the same WWE title match.

Royal Rumble 2007: Undertaker won, HBK was the runner up. Michaels went on to main event Mania 23 in the WWE title match.

Royal Rumble 2006: Mysterio won, Orton was the runner up. Both men were in the same World Title match at Mania 22.

Royal Rumble 2005: Batista won, Cena was the runner up. Cena went on to end JBL's 9 month WWE title reign at Mania 21.

I'm not saying that when there's only two men left in the ring, both men should just celebrate before battling to be the winner because it's pretty much guarenteed that both men will be in a title match at Mania, obviously that would be stupid. But when you look at the last two men, these days it seems to pretty much be a spoiler of who we're going to see in title matches at Wrestlemania.

While there's no problem with this happening occasionally, it's just a tad annoying. WWE build up the Royal Rumble as the premiere opportunity to get to Wrestlemania as a number 1 contender, and the runner up is always left, disappointed and upset. It just seems to hurt the credibility of winning the Royal Rumble if the runner up is also going to be in a title match every time. But that's just my thoughts.

What are your thoughts? Should this not happen, or is it really not that big a deal? Should they mix it up a bit in future to make the Wrestlemania title scene less obvious going into the big event, like the 2003 and 2004 Royal Rumble? Just something to think about....

 

[smfiscus1]

Now that I see it in black and white it's kind of hard to ignore, isn't it? I kind of agree that it takes away from the pageantry of winning the Rumble match but at the same time I think that the runner up deserves SOMETHING. Here's what I suggest: The guy who is runner up gets a guaranteed shot at the INT or US title.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

Does the Royal Rumble winner mean anything anymore?, so why should the runner up mean any less.

Just look at this years wrestlemania as an example, the winner of the rumble usually gets to close the show, instead they are placed a couple of matches away from the closing spot and left their to fend for themselves.

Was the match between edge and Jericho amazing, yes it was but it didnt close the show, Now dont get me wrong shawn vs taker was a great match and had alot on the line but you have so many ways now to win a world title that the rumble has lost its luster.

Now look at the many ways you can win a world title in the WWE and see if the rumble has any meaning these days

Royal Rumble Winner: Over the top rope battle Royal, the winner gets their shot for the brand of their choosing.

the second challenger gets picked at random on the second brand

Money in the bank: cashed in the winner almost automatically gets the belt.

Tournaments: beat the clock etc....

NXT winner gets a shot at the champion of their choice.

Elimination chase... Wrestler pins the champ and has to beat the clock to become the permanent world champion.

when you have loads of other ways to win a title the rumble doesnt seem that important and being the runner up seems less as important because winning the rumble only wins you a spot at mania but not the true main event.

and what happens to the guy whose in second place?, well nothing much, what happened to big show once benoit won the rumble?... Nothing, what happened to Chris Jericho when Edge won?, he had to win an elimination chamber match to get his shot.

The runner up is not guaranteed to get the second spot or even to take their shot at mania, so i wouldnt see this situation as a positive one, youve never seen a wrestler being credited with runner up at the royal rumble.

 

[RatedRPiedmont]

Royal Rumble 2010: Edge won, Cena was the runner up. Cena still got the WWE title match.

Royal Rumble 2009: Orton won, Triple H was the runner up. Triple H actually ended up WWE champion going into Wrestlemania.

Royal Rumble 2008: Cena won, Triple H was the runner up. Both men ended up in the same WWE title match.

Royal Rumble 2007: Undertaker won, HBK was the runner up. Michaels went on to main event Mania 23 in the WWE title match.

Royal Rumble 2006: Mysterio won, Orton was the runner up. Both men were in the same World Title match at Mania 22.

Royal Rumble 2005: Batista won, Cena was the runner up. Cena went on to end JBL's 9 month WWE title reign at Mania 21.

I couldnt agree more..the prestige of winning the Royal Rumble has definitely down now...some more interesting facts are:

2010: the last 4 men in the Royal Rumble made up the 4 men who main evented Wrestlemania 26 (Jericho, Batista, Cena, winner Edge). The only man to not enter or exit 'mania as champion was the winner, Edge.

2006: Not only did Orton and Mysterio main event the same match, the man eliminated before Orton was HHH, who main evented against Cena that year.

Not only does that bring down the prestige in winning, but the last 3 winners of the Royal Rumble have gone onto lose their championship match. (Cena lost against Orton and HHH in 2008, Orton lost to HHH in 2009 and now Edge lost to Jericho in 2010).

The Rumble is always good to the career of the winner, but its been just as good to the runner up in past years.

 

[Travaje]

I do not like that the winner of the Royal Rumble gets a title shot at Wrestlemania. It makes the match itself too predictable and obvious. You can cross off 2/3rds of the entrants before the match even starts because you know they aren't main-eventing Wrestlemania. And now, as OP points out, even the runner-ups are becoming predictable.

Another thing is that it's a lot easier to clothesline someone/throw someone over the top rope than it is to pin them. The office takes away the luck factor so much to the point where it's very unbelievable. It's also become more of a spot fest. I do think that even though it's still the match I look forward to the most every year, it's lost a lot of it's luster. The 2010 edition was one of the worst ones I've ever seen.

I would like to see the Royal Rumble as an enhancement match for some of the talent that could use it.

 

[conradishere12]

mmmmm well not really cos they dont get anythink for it. the person that comes second place in the rumble most of the time is in the EC match yeah im in the middle for this. good thread

 

[thepalaceprince]

I never realized that but seeing it just pisses me off. Seriously the rumble is starting to become a joke the main event guys dont enter until halfway through the match and in recent years the winner doesnt come in until extremely late. What happened to the days when guys came in early and battle through the whole thing? Seriously even if he doesnt win wen you know a guys been in the rumble for 45minutes it causes more excitement. What Id realy like to see is a mid card guy start it and make it to the final four once again even if he doesnt win it will create alot of excitement and make the rumble a little less predictable. After this years disaster of a rumble they need to do something to not only make the match more exciting but the entire ppv itself more exciting

 

[Tastycles]

I see your point, but notable in their absences are the runners up from the 2003 and 2004 Rumbles, Big Show and Undertaker, who didn't main event WrestleMania in the dual title era. That being said, the trend is certainly headed the way you said, but it is symptomatic of a more general trend rather than being noteworthy in itself.

Basically, there are more World Titles now, so there are more people in the main event. This, coupled with the fact that there have been three or four main event triple threats at Mania in recent times, means that there are a smaller pool of people for the champions to be picked from.

This affects the rumble because you want it to come down to two main eventers. If the final four is Jericho, Batista, Cena and Edge, any one of them could win. If the final 4 is Slam Master J, JTG, Jim Duggan and John Cena, you know who's going to win and the suspense is gone. As a result, the Royal Rumble runner up probably will end up in a main event match at WrestleMania, but that's because of a lack of main eventers and triple threat main events.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I'd say that being the runner up in the Royal Rumble is still nowhere near as good as winning it. The argument remains true that there ARE two world title matches at Wrestlemania and, by coincidence, the guys who got 2nd in the Rumble still had a good spot at Wrestlemania.... However....

The Royal Rumble has been around for two decades. Winning it is prestigious because of the long history it has. Taking a look at the impressive list of winners, it's much better for recent winners to say to themselves "Hey, I won that thing too!" even though there is a second world title match at Wrestlemania nowadays.

Also.... the winner of the Royal Rumble gets the bigger push.

2010
Cena got 2nd and still made it onto a higher spot on the Wrestlemania card, facing Batista to win the WWE Championship. Edge didn't win the World Heavyweight Championship from Jericho. However.... until Elimination Chamber, Edge had the biggest push out of anybody. We KNEW that Edge would be in a world title match at the biggest show of all. Cena had the better night at Wrestlemania, even though Edge had a bigger push in my opinion. He kept on getting referred to as "the main eventer of Wrestlemania" even though he just got a world title match since Taker/HBK II was the true main event.

2009
This is an odd one. Orton won the chance to main event Wrestlemania 25 against Triple H through winning the Royal Rumble by eliminating.... Triple H? It's the one recent case when getting 2nd was much better than winning the Rumble, since Trips lost the Rumble but walked into Wrestlemania as WWE Champion AND retained.

2008
Another odd case. Cena won the Rumble, but lost to Orton in a triple threat match also involving Trips.... who got 2nd in the Rumble. Not quite an argument that 2nd in the Rumble is better than 1st though.

2007
Undertaker won the Rumble, Michaels got 2nd. HBK went on to main event that year's Wrestlemania but he lost to Cena. Taker won the World Championship from Batista, so he got the better push despite being lower on the card.

2006
Mysterio won and Orton was the runner up.... both guys ended up in the same triple threat match, but Rey still won.

2005
Batista was the winner and Cena was the runner up. Both guys went on to win their first world title at Wrestlemania.... but it was Batista who main evented with Trips, while Cena faced JBL earlier on in the show.


I can see the argument you made in the original post, Blade.... but winning the match is still better than being the runner up because, other than 2009, the winner of the Rumble in recent years has still received a better push than the guy who got 2nd place in the Rumble. Add that to the point of how prestigious winning the Rumble is, and it shows that winning it is clearly better than getting 2nd except in rare circumstances like 2009 with Orton, who STILL got a massive push after his Rumble win.

 

[The Jew]

The people that get eliminated by the winner:

2010 Royal Rumble: Edge eliminated John Cena
WrestleMania XXVI: Edge vs Jericho | John Cena vs Batista

2009 Royal Rumble: Randy Orton eliminated Triple H
WrestleMania XXV: Randy Orton vs Triple H

2008 Royal Rumble: John Cena eliminated Triple H
WrestleMania XXIV: Triple H vs John Cena vs Randy Orton

2007 Royal Rumble: UnderTaker eliminated Shawn Michaels
WrestleMania 23: UnderTaker vs Batista | Shawn Michaels vs John Cena

2006 Royal Rumble: Rey Mysterio eliminated Randy Orton
WrestleMania 22: Rey Mysterio vs Randy Orton vs Kurt Angle

2005 Royal Rumble: Batista eliminated John Cena
WrestleMania 21: Batista vs Triple H | John Cena vs JBL

This seems to be as recent as RR 2005/WM 21 because the pattern starts from there. I've recognized this pattern a few years back and this made the WreslteMania main events way too predictable for me. What do you think of this?

 

[BWEEZY2009]

Great find.

I did notice that the last two years but I never looked into it that far back.

Kind of an interesting fun fact.

My biggest problem with the Royal Rumble is that it's to predictable. The only time within the last 10 years i didn't call it was Cena's win and that was because no one called that return. I remember the year Rey won it and all online sources had already confirmed it that he was going to win it the week before the actual event.

 

[lamo78]

I have noticed that as well. The Rumble needs to change things up a bit just to shake up the landscape of it. As soon as the list of participants is out, you can easily eliminate 1/2 the field immediately. You know that Santino and Dolph Ziggler are not going to win. Then there are people like Kane, Big Show, etc. They are nice to see in the Rumble, but not going to win it.

I would like to see the Rumble use the last two or three participants as springboards to launching pushes. I would like to see the WWE use the Rumble to push someone instead of using it to push the return of injured stars.

 

[brochester8]

I agree, it seems like the last rumble win that most didnt' see coming was Benoit.

It seems they do use it to bring back injured stars like they did with Triple H, John Cena, and Edge.

 

[jmyers19]

Wow, great find. Damn, its kinda freaky in some sense lol. Didn't expect something as detailed as this when I opened the post. Anyways, this never even crossed my mind and usually I pick up on some things as well. And I agree with BWEEZY2009, its became predictable, I didn't go on wrestling sites before 2006 so I wouldn't know what the reports were like but perhaps the biggest shocker was Cena winning the Rumble because as BWEEZY said no one called the return

 

[LightUnique]

Cool find always something new in the royal rumble to find like the new current trend is the past 2 royal rumble winners lost at wrestlemania expect that too continue for the next 2 years or so so it can be hyped but definently interesting find by u

 

[Midgetmania619]

Yes I've noticed that a few weeks ago. Another forum user posted this and I thanked them. Thank you aswell for posting this too.

 

[pessimism101]

I seriously think that a name should be pulled out of a hat to determine the winner. It sounds silly, I know, but at least that way, the Rumble would be that much more undpredictable.

 

[Tyler44]

Yeah very great find! The thing is though, do you see anyway WWE can do it differently? What I mean is that usually the final 2 participants in the Royal Rumble are usually some of the top guys in the current product. With that said, do you think (with the current lazy booking from WWE) they can find another way to get one of the top superstars out of the main event at Wrestlemania? I would suppose a built up feud, but we don't see that often a lot of times during Wrestlemania (more than maybe 2 is rare).

 

[Mr. TM]

Well it comes down to this. The Royal Rumble usually has two men at the end, after the 28 other men have been eliminated. If the WWE trusts the two men this far, it is obvious that they will each be going to Wrestlemania for a title shot. If anything, it makes the finale of the Rumble interesting, because even if you didn't call the final two (With Edge, Cena, Benoit) in it, you know by the final 6-4 wrestlers, that there are two people that will likely get a title shot.

 

[NXTrookie2013]

Haha, I never realized this, well I did last year and this year kinda because edge and randy orton eliminated who they would face, I didn't think that it went back that far. Thanks for this, now I now when I see the last two of the Royal Rumble I know either way their both going to the grand stage main eventing xD

 

[nish2231995]

A royal rumble has never made sense to me. Over a period of years you see smaller guys win the royal rumble. Have we ever seen the big show win a royal rumble? or what about the king of the royal rumbles kane? instead we are supposed to believe that small guys like rey should win? Also i think if you're starting at #1 or #2 and stay in the ring for about 45 minutes you deserve to win regardless of who's left, nobody should work hard for nothing to comeh into their account (like rey 2009, triple h 2006 is not what i was looking at but he shoulda been eliminated earlier or come out earlier) And i think we all took a shocker when edge came at #29 instead of #30.

Also the past 3 royal rumble winners have not walked out as champ.
Cena vs orton no way out 2008 ends in a DQ orton champ
orton vs hhh, hhh wins
edge vs jericho, jericho wins.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

I don't think WWE see the trend, The Jew. I think if you showed them your findings, they would be like whoa. It is weird, since they have had the brand extension and bringing in the World title, the winner of the rumble hasn't always main evented WrestleMania, but since 2002, wwe has always seen wrestlemania to have upto 3 main event matches. The only one I really saw that didn't make sense was WM23, taker winning the rumble and being the 4th match on the card for mania, I never watched the event, but I heard it was a great match.