Is the Royal rumble not as significant?

[fouldsy91]

After reading the thread of "Wrestlers who had a great Royal Rumble, But flopped at WrestleMania", I have just realised that since Wrestlemania 23, there have only been two people who have won the Royal Rumble to win the title.

Wrestlemania 23 - Undertaker wins Rumble and beats Batista for WHC
Wrestlemania 24 - John Cena wins Rumble, uses title shot at No Way Out and loses to Orton, also loses in triple threat with Triple H and Orton at WM with Orton retaining WWE Title
Wrestlemania 25 - Orton wins Rumble, defeated off Triple H who retains WWE Title
Wrestlemania 26 - Edge wins Rumble, defeated off Jericho who retains WHC
Wrestlemania 27 - Del Rio wins Rumble, defeated off Edge who retains WHC
Wrestlemania 28 - Sheamus wins Rumble, and beats Daniel Bryan for WHC

Another fact is that out of these, only Wrestlemania 25 has been the main event for the Royal Rumble winner, Wrestlemania 22 can be added to this as well so 1 in the last 7 Wrestlemania's has been the main event featuring the Royal Rumble winner and the last 2 years have been featured in the opening matches.

We're approaching the Royal Rumble soon but do you think it's losing its signifigance? And why? Is it because of Money in the Bank? Outdated concept? Or other reasons?

 

[The Brain]

It has lost some significance over the years and that is both good and bad. It’s bad because the Rumble used to be just about the most important match of the year. It’s at the beginning of a new year and the winner was usually the guy who was going to carry the company for the upcoming year. You knew that the winner was about to become the top guy. That feeling is gone now which makes the match seem less significant. The good thing about it is it makes the match less predictable. For years it was very obvious who the Rumble winner was going to be. We can still easily narrow it down to a few guys now but that’s more than we had before.

There are two reasons the match isn’t as significant as it used to be. The first is obviously because there are two world titles. The winner of the Rumble doesn’t always go for the more important title. In fact he rarely does. Basically winning the Rumble doesn’t mean you’re going to be the number one guy anymore. Not only that but the more important title isn’t even the most important match at mania every year. Last year the WWE championship was the third most important match on the mania card. The Rumble winner challenged for the world title in what was probably the fourth most important match on the card. The same could be said for 2010 and probably 2013 too.

 

[HBsam31]

The same thread as the OP mentioned got me thinking about this exact same thing. To me the answer is what the Brain said. The thing that gets on my nerves most about it now is when the winner of the Rumble doesn't even challenge for the WWE title all the time. Having 2 titles does not help in adding significance to the Rumble at all. Sheamus winning the Royal Rumble and the following Mania match got Daniel Bryan over more than it did Sheamus, and I don't even think that point can be argued. I will say the Rumble match is a little less predictable now, but I do miss the days where the Rumble winner set the tone for the whole year.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

There are two reasons the match isn’t as significant as it used to be. The first is obviously because there are two world titles. The winner of the Rumble doesn’t always go for the more important title. In fact he rarely does. Basically winning the Rumble doesn’t mean you’re going to be the number one guy anymore. Not only that but the more important title isn’t even the most important match at mania every year. Last year the WWE championship was the third most important match on the mania card. The Rumble winner challenged for the world title in what was probably the fourth most important match on the card. The same could be said for 2010 and probably 2013 too.

Exactly. Problem is, for the last couple of years RR match isn't used for mainevent feuds but to elevate people(just in case of Del Rio and Sheamus who are coincidently probably two most misused talents for that win because neither got over because of it and didn't mainevent anything). The significance of RR was in that you with the win at RR could mainevent unarguablly biggest event in a year in wrestling, but in last years it is used to elevate people rather than maineventing anything. Thats why I think that it would be good that RR winner should really mainevent and that it could be guys with some significance in mainevent feud that could win Rumble(like Orton did in WM25 or Cena at WM24).

Other trouble is, if you look at the cards for 3 previous years, there really isnt any space for maineventing WM. When Edge won it it was about Undertaker and Shawn, when Del Rio won it it was about Rock as host and when Sheamus won it it was all about Rock- Cena. This year, I am guessing it would be all about Rock again so if the winner of RR wants maineventing he should involve himself in WWE title match. So, eather it would be someone Cena, or it would again be to elevate someone(Wade Barett comes to my mind or probably Ryback).

 

[thebowtiekiller]

i thought about doing a similar thread as i feel the rumble has lost its importance aswel as its already been mentioned theres two world titles which halves the prestige in my opinion the rumbles winners title match isnt even the main event anymore that usually goes to taker the rumble is possibilly the most useful star creating tool wwe has ever had but they dont seem to make it a big enough deal anymore its still fun to watch tho

 

[CB420]

I still think the RR is the best match of the year... the WWE always seems to entertain me with fun stuff.. (usually someone who gets a push comes in and clears house before getting eliminated, surprise entrants, someone who lasts a long time in the event, etc etc...)
And as mentioned by Brain... I find it a lot better that the RR is less predictable.. (I remember my jaws dropped when they did the Santino thing... I really thought for once they gave it to a MAJOR underdog)
So the significance to the whole title picture may have lost some importance... but the match itself I don't find has lost any significance to me in terms of entertainment value... just my 2 cents!

CB420

 

[Azane]

Ya, I've really lost a lot of my enthusiasm for the Royal Rumble in the last few years, RR was one of the PPVs that I always bought and made time to watch live, as it was so exciting, but the last few years, I will only use as a catalog of the roster when I rewatch it in 10 years (Something I love doing nowadays).

I don't mind it being predictable unlike a lot of people, I guess I just like simple wrestling, predictable actions make swerves and such so much better, and with the last couple years of WWE's product, the swerves have pretty much lost any value since they're so random and worthless.

I liked the last few winners and thought, they've used the RR to try and push newer talent, I mean Sheamus is doing great for how short he's been with the E, and having a Royal Rumble / WM title win definitely put a feather in his cap and solidifed him as a main eventer for the whole year. ADR lost a lot of his buzz when the entire edge angle overshadowed him (I think this crushed Del Rio, as he was a shooting star until that whole angle pushed him down).

Previous winners like Edge, Orton, Cena, they already had top spot and their Rumble wins meant very little, Cena's in particular, was very much expected, as I think 3/4s of the thread on the Rumble called his return.

They've tried too hard and exhausted every good angle from the Rumble, from the 1-30, to Mr. Mcmahon winning, to the double over the top finish, Skinning the cat used to be amazing, but we see it 5-6 times a year now, I just think a lot of the buzz ABOUT the match is gone, and it's devalued it.

I think they could gain a lot of importance on the match, and actually sell more future rumble tickets simply by giving the RR winner the main event, no matter what. Putting random feuds over the world title is just cancer to ratings and viewer interest, I missed the live showing of last years Rumble, because I honestly didn't care about it, and this years shaping up the same (I especially detest someone coming in for 3-4 shows a year taking the spotlight from people who work 300 days a year for WWE, but that's it's own topic)


We used to have King of The Ring to push talent, and Royal Rumble to solidify champions, now we have MITB To overpush people who aren't ready and Royal Rumble to give 2 people a reason to fight at WM.

I'll actually enjoy watching the RR more in 2020, laughing at all the silly gimmicks and the whos who of 2013.

 

[Merkin353]

My first PPV I attended was the Rumble in Atlanta and everyone knew HHH was going to win it. If my memory serves me right the last two were Angle & Trips. Out of the 4 PPVs I've been too (Backlash, WrestleMania, & Hell In A Cell) the most fun I had was @ said predictable Rumble. I agree with the Santino comment above. I really thought he was going to win & I still believe he should have or maybe would have if they had a heel Edge not Face edge... Just look at the list right now of possible 2013 winners... Undertaker, Ryback, Ziggler, Barrett, Daniel Bryan, Orton, & Cody Rhodes (Hopefully they keep him off TV until then making it more believable)... Not to mention the fun parts of the show, Damien Shandow will make for an entertaining moment for sure along with the PTP & Santino... I don't care if the winner main events WM because by that time all I can think of is the stage, the crowd, the lights, the matches & just the whole event that is WrestleMania!

 

[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.

The fact that half of the Royal Rumble winners have lost in their world title match at Wrestlemania is not a good thing when arguing the importance of the Royal Rumble match win. However, the fact that half of the Royal Rumble winners did not main event is even worse in my opinion. The winner of the Rumble should close at Wrestlemania. Period. It would make winning the Rumble match seem more important because even if the wrestler does not win a world title he still gets his chance for a Wrestlemania moment in the main event. Some might blame the fact that there were two world titles to win, but from 2002 until 2006 the Royal Rumble winner was winning and main eventing, so there goes that argument. Starting in 2006 it began seeming far less significant and I hope that WWE is able to restore the importance that winning the Royal Rumble once had. This year's winner MUST close Wrestlemania AND win the WWE/World Championship.

 

[Lee]

Does anyone really care that the Royal Rumble is number 1 contender at Mania? I mean Elimination Chamber has removed any interest in that.

The Rumble may seem outdated but it's easily the best way to get non wrestling fans to watch. I watch the Rumble every year with a few WZers and it's quite fun to guess who's out next to do the 10 chant to see a surprise return and see 20 guys trying to lift the fat bastard out.

 

[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]

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.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

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 Henessey]

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.