Royal Rumble Without Wrestlemania Title Shot

[Slim Pickns]

Remember when the Royal Rumble was simply to be called the Rumble winner? When there was no Wrestlemania Title shot on the line? It was all simply for pride. It worked back in the 89, 90, and 91 Rumbles, mainly because they had Hogan driving a great storyline and Jesse Ventura putting it over like crazy from the announcers' booth, but would it work today? In 92 the WWF title was on the line and in 93 the Wrestlemania Title shot rule was added. I think the Rumble would have gone the way of Survivor Series and KOTR if the WWE didn't add this stipulation.

Survivor Series rarely has elimination matches anymore and KOTR happens at random. Plus the participants are not the quality of what they were in the past. I think the Rumble would have been the same and become a midcard match fairly quickly. In the early 90's you could get away with it being the main event, but today people are obsessed with World Titles and they need to see one at every PPV. If the Rumble didn't offer a title shot it would be on before the World Title matches every year and guys like MVP, Umaga, and John Morrison would win it. I could never see a large number of WWE fans paying $50 to see a PPV in which a battle royal for nothing is the main event.

 

[Mantard]

I think I may agree with this. I don't recall too much off the top of my head, but has there been a Rumble winner recently that hasn't won said title challenge at Wrestlemania? Kinda makes it predictable if so, and while I think it was a decent idea to let them challenge for any title, it's not like (again this is based on memory) anyone's tried for another brand's title...

If you're a Raw Superstar, might as well go for that. If you're Smackdown, you're probably a more exclusive star (Undertaker, Rey [at the time]) and you're not moving. If you're an ECW competitor... well then you'll probably be within the first 10 eliminations. Whoops.

I think that the Rumble winner should just get a push, or nudge in a higher direction, not just be guaranteed a Heavyweight Championship shot. Put them into a title feud, but not as the sole challenger. Have some Number 1 Contender vs Rumble Winner matches. Maybe even have the Rumble winner go for the Intercontinental, or something. That belt really does need some life pumped into it.

 

[mcflyboy]

It's kind of a double-edged sword. While the title shot stipulation does add interest to the royal rumble match itself, it also means that the winner is predictable. Every year there is really only one or maybe two possibilities for the winner, and that person is likely someone who has already been heavily involved in title matches already.

Something that I think would really be better overall would be to do away with the wrestlemania's money in the bank ladder match and grant the winner of the royal rumble a "money in the bank" briefcase instead (wouldn't make sense to keep more than one money in the bank briefcase out per year). That way, there is still a point to winning it, but at the same time the winner may not be so predictable ahead of time.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I both agree and disagree. While I like the idea of having a Royal Rumble just to stand alone in being a Royal Rumble without any added bonus, the fact is its become a glorious match in which you have to be very unique and "on top" be earn the Main Event, or close to Main Event spot at Wrestlemania.

In the beginning, Hacksaw Jim Duggan picked up the very first Rumble victory. That in today's world would be unheard of, for some random midcarder who wouldn't even be thought of to get close to a World Championship to win a match thats come to mean so much. However..

This year's Rumble may have slightly been a turn in a new direction. Many feel John Cena highly disrespected the entire event by taking his Wrestlemania Championships opportunity, and cashing it in more or less on a no-nothing Pay Per View. So the question is, did he disrespect the Royal Rumble's legacy of producing Mania Main Eventers? Or did he disrespect Wrestlemania's legacy in having the Rumble winner being the guy who earned the spot, without question? In my opinion, he did both.

Yet at the same time, this year's Rumble was more or less like the very first one. Meaningless and just another battle royal in which the winner may have received a title shot, but it was at an event that didn't mean anything. So this year's Rumble in that theory, was one of a kind. Limbo, if you will. In which it didn't mean as much to win it and earn a shot.. yet the winner still received a shot.

 

[image1986]

I don't think disrespected the tradition at all because he ended up main eventing mania anyway so it was like the no way match really didn't even matter. And I think its starting to be unpredictable now because first no one figured cena was going to show up at the rumble then when he won it you thought it was guarentee that he was winning mania and guess what not only didn't he win at mainia but orton retained. So basically the direction wwe is going is even if u win the runble it doesn't guarentee nothing. I actually like the fact that john cena didn't win cuz most likely he would of been booed out the building.

 

[PDecicco]

For me the winner of the Royal Rumble earning a shot at WrestleMania is a must. It really serves no purpose to say "I'm a Rumble winner" unless you were there as an early entrant.

However, here's a thought I just had based on what somebody else said earlier. What if throughout the year they had MITB qualifiers and the Royal Rumble was for the last spot in the MITB match?

Maybe the KOTR winner gets a spot, somehow they can work a survivor series match into getting a participant, at Cyber Sunday fans vote on who is in the qualifying match. These matches could potentially increase the buy rate for lesser PPV's because now they involve 'Mania.

And this way the Rumble would still be important in as much as its your last chance to earn a spot in MITB to hopefully get a shot at the title and it still adds a little suspense because a bona fide main eventer doesn't need to win the Rumble for storyline purposes.

 

["Cool Guy" Jensen]

The Royal Rumble winner should indeed have a World Chapionship match of their choice at Wrestlemania. From 1988-1991 being the Rumble winner was pointless so when they added the Wrestlemania feature it made it better. From 2001-2007, every Rumble winner has won the title being Stone Cold beating The Rock, Triple H beating Chris Jericho, Brock Lesnar brating Kurt Angle, Chris Benoit beating Triple H and Shawn Michaels in a Triple Threat match, Batista beating Triple H, Rey Mysterio beating Kurt Angle and Randy Orton in a Triple Threat match, and Undertaker beating Batista. In 2008, when John Cena won the Royal Rumble, I knew he wouldn't win the WWE Championship and he didn't. So the Royal Rumble would have no meaining if it didn't mean you would get a World Title shot at Wrestlemania.

 

[RoyalSkull]

I think since the invention of the MITB ladder match, the concept of the Royal Rumble makes no sense. You have to beat 29 other men and last basically an hour, and you get a title shot at Wrestlemania. OR you could beat 7 men in a ladder match and get a title shot at ANY time. The payoff is much better for the MITB and it would be a lot easier to win than the Royal Rumble. So they should really retire the MITB, at least for a few years, it's becoming old and stale already, and like I said takes away the prestige and value of being the Rumble winner.

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

The Royal Rumble started to lose it's luster during the 90's after Hogan won it. I mean when you have a predictable winner win one, then it's not really as prestigious and is sort of a let down when others win it. It seemed as if the luster of the Royal Rumble had been siphoned off by the King of the Ring tournament, as the winner of that usually got pushed towards the world title. Something needed to be done in order to regain attention for the event in general. So a prize was attached. I mean you couldn't NOT attach a prize to it after Ric Flair was able to win the world title by winning the Rumble. So for a while the Rumble stagnated for a while with winner not really winning anything at all except bragging right. And then later the stipulation was added to the prize that it could be used on any one of the three brands, that was new feuds could take place for a superstar switching brands.

Sounds pretty good right? Well it is in th fact that is creates whole "unpredictable" aura as to where the star who wins the Rumble will land and who he will face as his prize. Unfortunately, this mirrors the MITB entirely too much. If they tried a couple of Royal Rumbles without there being a prestigious prize in place, lack the drive and hunger that you expect to see. I mean, if a man doesn't win, he isn't missing out on anything. If you take away the title shot, then you at least have to replace it with something of equal or greater value as compensation for the effort. Plain and simple.

 

[BigDaddyT]

They might as well change the title, "Royal Rumble" to "MITB." Personally i am much more interested in the MITB firstly because im a mark for ladder matches but secondly because it has less people which means potential storylines can get developed in only one match. Although the Royal Rumble can say the same with the exception of the first one, i just dont think its as special as it used to be anymore.

 

[rockofhysteria]

I think This is a totally great idea to not have a title shot for the winner of the Royal Rumble anymore cause ever since they started that the rumble became way too predictable especially from about 2001 to this year where you know pretty much the only guys that have a shot at winning cause they are the only ones WWE is willing to push or even give a title shot. I mean with their history of not pushing a lot of their great talent do they really expect us to think that a guy like shelton benjamin will ever be allowed to have a title shot at Mania or guys like Paul London, Super Crazy, or Hardcore Holly. I think if they get rid of the automatic title shot it will make the rumble better cause then they can afford to let a shelton benjamin win the thing cause then they don't have actually reward his talents with a title shot they can still push the same guys they always do. Look at the first two rumbles ever the winners were totally unlikely Hacksaw Jim Duggan a guy who WWE completely wasted and Big John Studd who was a the very end of his career when he won they were allowed to win cause they wouldnt be headlining that years wrestlemania. I would definately love to see WWE take the title shot away from the Royal Rumble.

 

[Monkey_Mania]

Maybe it's just the traditionalist in me, but I think they should keep it as it is. I mean yeah, it has gotten to be very fucking predictable. But in the end it always ends up serving it's purpose. Hacksaw Jim Duggan was the first Royal Rumble winner. I could never see him with the title. It was a good move that they added the stipulation of the No.1 contender spot to give the Rumble a little more prestige. I hope it never goes away. I just think they need to make it a little less predictable.

 

[midgensa]

I think since the invention of the MITB ladder match, the concept of the Royal Rumble makes no sense. You have to beat 29 other men and last basically an hour, and you get a title shot at Wrestlemania. OR you could beat 7 men in a ladder match and get a title shot at ANY time. The payoff is much better for the MITB and it would be a lot easier to win than the Royal Rumble. So they should really retire the MITB, at least for a few years, it's becoming old and stale already, and like I said takes away the prestige and value of being the Rumble winner.

I kind of see your point on this ... but the Rumble winner is a bigger deal than MITB because the performer would also be HEADLINING WRESTLEMANIA. I think that is the big deal to the "characters" most of the time. They are going to the grandest stage to compete for the grandest prize. While it is about the World title ... it is just as much about competing at WM. MITB is nice and all, but winning the World Title vs. an opponent who has just had the shit kicked out of him is not as grand and memorable as winning at WM.

 

[klunderbunker]

I vaguely remember the Rumbles before Flair's win, and have seen them dozens of time on video. They were nothing significant at all, although a very cool match. Look at the first 4, from 88-91. In the first one, the match wasn't even the main event of the show, there was a tag match on after it. 89, Big John Studd wins it? To this day, I fail to see the point in this. The following two years, it was simply around to show that Hogan was still the king of the company. Then in 1992, where teh winner was awarded the title, it was suddenly the biggest match of the year, save for the championship match at Wrestlemania. The following year, I remember counting down to the Rumble. It made the match a true spectacle to wait for every year, with nothing at all like it. There's nothing at all that rivals it for a gimmick match that's the same every year. Without the title match, it was nothing, just a match that was interesting to watch, but after it nothing happens. Now, with the new stipulations, this match changes teh shape of the company for the rest of the year. It determines the main event of the biggest show of the year, it sets up feuds, and it establishes who is the next "it" guy for the year. It's good that the rule was added, because without the Rumble would be pretty meaningless.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Hell the fuck no it wouldnt work....would YOU buy that shit??

Unless they began doing a HUGE title match main event, or something, this PPV would be worth nothing if it wasnt for the rumble, and the title shot. As KB said, this is probably the biggest match of the year (or was, if they are going with NWO chamber as an annnual thing now) and sets up everything, for WM, and beyond in some cases.