Royal Rumbles that should have had different (specific) winners

[Tastycles]

There have been a lot of Royal Rumbles where the winner is obvious and the right choice over the years - Orton 2009, Hogan 1991, Austin 1998 are perect examples. Then there are those where the winner is less obvious, but who fit the bill perfectly - Flair 1992 , Benoit 2004 and McMahon 1999 are probably the best examples. Then there are those where the winner makes sense, and nobody really stood out as a winner, Edge this year, Lesnar 2003 and Rock 2000 are your examples here. But what about in other years. For me, there are a few years when the man who should have won the Rumble didn't, and that's what I'd like to explore in this thread. Here's my picks:

Royal Rumble 1990 - Ultimate Warrior

Hogan actually won, and certainly wasn't a bad shout, but in all seriousness, the portion of the match where Warrior and Hogan were squaring up to one another was probably the biggest moment in the build of their WrestleMania VI match. In the end, Hogan didn't do anything while the Barbarian and Rude eliminated Warrior, after Warrior had come to his aid earlier. It was quite a damp way to highlight the feud. What would have been much better is if Hogan had been cheated out and helped Warrior win, setting up the mutual respect angle going into Mania.

Royal Rumble 1995 - The Undertaker

Michaels won, and it was a total damp squib of a match that followed at WrestleMania XI, where nobody bought Michaels being there. WWF should have gone with the tried and tested Undertaker, Michaels would have gained more from beating Bundy than Taker did, and Diesel vs Undertaker would have given some much needed starpower to the main event of Mania that year.

Royal Rumble 2005 - John Cena

It was always going to be one or the other, but Cena winning here would have made him look the better of the two, which would have made Smackdown look a better brand than it did after two frankly underqualified champions. Batista had the angle going into Mania, he didn't need this win, the break up of Evolution could have easily given him the platform to challenge Triple H, whereas a win from early on could have given Cena a real Cinderella story going into WrestleMania.

 

[Jimmy King]

Royal Rumble 2010: Winner was Edge. Winner should have been Shawn Michaels.

My reason is that Edge would have had enough fuel from his return alone to challenge Jericho to a title match. Instead of being predictable and telling Jericho he was going to use his shot against him. I mean, Jericho was already the most hated heel. Edge didn't need the Rumble win to boost his popularity with the fans. It was too forced. Michaels should have won the Rumble. Said immediately he was going to challenge Taker for the title/streak/career. Then, when Taker lost at Elimination Chamber, Michaels could have vacated the title match. This would have allowed two things. It would have added more seriousness to the hatred Michaels had for Taker, and it would have been a logical way to bring back King of the Ring. This could have filled the gap between Elimination Chamber and Wrestlemania 26. Not to mention, every Raw/Smackdown/ECW would have had more actual wrestling without the need for storylines. Just my thoughts...

 

[AllanC]

ok one thing doesnt make too much sense...by saying "Michaels could have vacated the title match" would have completely screwed the reason for him winning to begin with, let alone having a Royal Rumble match, would make no sense, the fans would get screwed out of a Wrestle mania main event...I am completely happy the way it all turned out, Sure Edge didnt need any push to challenge Jericho..then again without the win at the rumble Jericho could have just as easily declined the match, and thus your idea wouldnt work at all...the Royal Rumble winner is guaranteed a title shot at Mania, whether the champ likes it or not...just seems more logical than what you are saying.

 

[minionofdarkness]

While I agree with 1990, 1995, and 2005, I would like to add the first Royal Rumble in
1988. Why have that joke Hacksaw Jim Duggan win it? What did he ever accomplish accept for being King in 1989, until Savage beat him, and getting on everyone's nerves? They could have used that to put over the Million Dollar Man. I was never a fan of the Million Dollar Man, but his work towards his character was second to none. He tried to buy the belt a month later, and he could have claimed that he was a Rumble winner, and held the then WWF title. But we saw how long he was champion. Even Yokozuna's first reign was longer. And that lasted all of 10 seconds.

 

[Andy 2 Randy]

I thought that Edge Winning was better than HBK, mainly because if HBK won, it would be a straight runway to WM26..the way it was done was fantastic. Now say Cena won the RR in 2005, that would have been better fitting. You see, i dont like RR winners that stick to a big storyline, i prefer a shock winner. Like when Cena won in 2008, nobody knew he came back until number 30 and BOOM! Suprise winner...It makes the whole event that more exiting...I'm Just Sayin...

 

[Jimmy King]

ok one thing doesnt make too much sense...by saying "Michaels could have vacated the title match" would have completely screwed the reason for him winning to begin with, let alone having a Royal Rumble match, would make no sense, the fans would get screwed out of a Wrestle mania main event...I am completely happy the way it all turned out, Sure Edge didnt need any push to challenge Jericho..then again without the win at the rumble Jericho could have just as easily declined the match, and thus your idea wouldnt work at all...the Royal Rumble winner is guaranteed a title shot at Mania, whether the champ likes it or not...just seems more logical than what you are saying.

....the reason for him competing in the first place was to get a chance to fight Taker. HBK was eliminated at the Rumble. Then, Taker lost the title at Elimination Chamber. As a matter of fact, HBK and HHH had a backstage segment where it was a basic "we're not friends in the Rumble" thing and HBK said that the only reason he was in the Rumble was to get to Taker.

And by you saying that my idea wouldn't work at all because Jericho could have just turned him down, that's only by your circumstances. In professional wrestling anything can happen. Edge could have teased being a tweener or a heel by "seducing" Vickie into giving him a match against Jericho only to turn on her and solidify his face status. Not to mention, when has there ever been a champion (especially a heel one) straight up deny a challenger a title fight and it stay that way?

I'm not saying it wasn't played out well, I just didn't think Edge needed the win. I like the idea of the younger talent being able to shine in matches like that. Just like in MITB, I wasn't too fond of the idea of Big Show, Edge, Jericho and Orton in the matches because those matches have always been there to catapult younger talent. They did that with the Raw match. But, Orton, Edge, Jericho and Show don't need MITB wins to push them into the title picture.

 

[JJ15776]

Can't agree with 2005. That was my first thought, but when you really think about it, it wouldn't have worked as well as it actually did. See, you needed Batista to have the choice of which champion to face. That built up to the perfect exclamation mark on his turn. Cena still got his title shot and won.

Undertaker in 1995 doesn't work, either. You needed HBK in the main event, and you needed him to lose. You have to look at the bigger picture. It was all a build to the next Wrestlemania, where HBK finally won the title. Winning the 95 Royal Rumble helped establish him as a main eventer, and losing the title match added to the drama of him winning the next year. He needed to lose that match, so he could have Sid turn on him, and return as a face. None of that could've happened if he didn't win the Royal Rumble and he beat whoever at Wrestlemania. Like Batista, that storyline played out perfectly the way it was.

And to Allan, I'm not sure you read the post you were responding to. Did you? He vacates the title match so he can still face Undertaker. It makes perfect sense. Obviously - I wouldn't think this would have to be explained to you, but I guess so - obviously you're going to have somebody else (Edge) earn that title shot instead. Last I checked, the champion can't just say "yeah, I'm opting to not defend my title." You're not going to not have a title match. And besides, you said something about there not being a main event...what? Undertaker vs. HBK was the main event.

And lol at the 1988 Royal Rumble. That was on regular TV and didn't mean anything.

I'm going to say Rob Van Dam in 2004. We all know who won that year, and we all know the world would be a much better place if he hadn't. Since the WWE (rightfully) has erased him from the history books, let's take away his joke of a World title reign, which started here. And Rob Van Dam makes the most sense to win it. He was already fueding with Evolution (had just lost the IC title to Randy Orton), so it would've been a smooth transition for him to step up and take the World title from Triple H.

 

[MMK]

1989 Winner was: Big John Studd/ But it should have been Hulk Hogan. It should have ended with the Mega Powers feuding over Hogan's eliminating Savage. Studd was a dud of a Rumble winner. He went on to do absolutely nothing. Ending the ppv with the mega powers at odds would have been more climactic.

1990 Winner was: Hogan/ But it should have been Warrior to set up the Wrestlemania 6 title match. I would have basically mirrored my ending from 89 only with Hogan in the Savage role and Warrior in the Hogan role.

1994 Co-winners were: Bret & Lex/ But it should have been just Bret. Anything but a tie really. All of Fuji's henchmen should have eliminated Luger while Bret should have come back to eliminate Owen in the end. At Wrestlemania it would be Bret vs Yoko for the title BUT Bret could still wrestle Owen in a separate match earlier on. As for Lex, who cares?

1995 Winner was: HBK/ But it should have been Undertaker. But I also would have had Bret beat Diesel for the WWF Title earlier in the ppv. This way Shawn vs Diesel is still at Wrestlemania, only it's not for the title. Instead it would have been Bret vs Undertaker for the title in the Wrestlemania 11 main event.

1999 Winner: Mr.McMahon/ But it should have been Austin. No one had ever won 3 in a row, Austin should have done just that back in 99. After all, they had him win the title shot opportunity just a month later vs Vince in a cage match anyway.

2003 Winner was: Brock Lesnar./ But it should have been Kurt Angle. I just think Angle should have won a Rumble at some point. Plus, Brock left WWE a year or so later and keeping him out of the main event at Mania would have spared us all from seeing that huge botched top rope splash he attempted. That move pretty much summed up Lesnars stint with WWE. It didn't go as planned.

I agree with the winners of pretty much every other Rumble, so those are the only changes I'd make.

 

[JuviJuiceIsLoose]

2003 Winner was: Brock Lesnar./ But it should have been Kurt Angle. I just think Angle should have won a Rumble at some point. Plus, Brock left WWE a year or so later and keeping him out of the main event at Mania would have spared us all from seeing that huge botched top rope splash he attempted. That move pretty much summed up Lesnars stint with WWE. It didn't go as planned.
.

It couldn't be Kurt Angle in '03, because he was already WWE Champion.

I disagree with you about Brock's WWE stint. With the exception of his last match with Goldberg, his WWE career was phenomenal.

No one had ever come in and made that kind of impact that early in their career.

 

[gameshowfreak]

2006: winner was Rey Mysterio but I would have booked either Orton or Benoit to win it, Mysterio's run was just too predictable and his subsequent world title reign wasn't overly memorable.

Benoit could have worked with the Eddie Guerrero thing cause he was jsut a more believable champ.

Orton becuase he ended up in the title match anyway.

 

[The Brain]

I think Randy Savage would have been a good choice to win in 1993. This would have set up a title match with Bret Hart at WM9. Bret had just become the new top guy in the WWF, but didn’t really having that defining win to make him a star. Beating a proven main eventer in Savage at mania could have been Bret’s shining moment. It would have been more of a star power mania match than Bret vs. Yokozuna. It also would have likely been an awesome match and a mania classic. I can’t complain too much though. Even though I hated the ending to WM9 I liked that Yokozuna beat Hogan at King of the Ring and was credited for killing Hulkamania. That was huge in establishing Yoko as the top heel.

I can’t disagree with Lesnar winning in 2003, but Booker T might have been a good choice. Booker got the title shot at mania against Triple H, but a lot of people weren’t buying into it. A rumble win would have given him more credibility. Lesnar had all the momentum in the world at that time anyway. He didn’t need the rumble to challenge Angle at mania. Honestly I think Lesnar was the right call, but I’m just offering something to think about.

 

[CyDeez]

As for Lex, who cares?

LOL... I was dying at the Lex comment!!

I'll just say 99...

They could have given it to HHH while he was still face and elevated him sooner, but the way they turned him at WM was perfect...

Maybe Paul Wight could have debuted at The RR and won, and had Austin somehow win the title before WM and defend against The Big Show at WM and won (Which Austin has never done by the way, came into WM as champ and defended it)... And had ONE more epic battle at WM between Foley and Rock, thus sending Rock into his face role, and The Rock & Sock Connection, based on their WM match...

They wouldn't have had to rush into The Austin/Rock feud...

Then when they met at WM 17, as epic as it was, could have been YEARS in the making with the same outcome! (Austin selling his soul to the devil)

Then in 03 when Rock beat Austin at WM 19, it could have evened them up at 1-1 at WM!!!

Weird explanation but fuck it LOL... Tryin to think of something different than Austin winning it for The 3rd year in a row, because Vince definetly shouldn't have won!!

 

[Decarow]

One RR that I didn't see coming...

2007- Undertaker won it. Did he need it? Not really, but it was something to add to his repertoire. Honestly, I thought CM Punk was going to win it. Yes it was before his huge push, but we all saw it coming eventually.

2001- Austin won. Kane should have won. He was on a roll at the time. Eliminated 11 guys in that match. If there was a time for a dominating Kane title reign, 2001 would have been perfect. But we wouldn't have gotten the betrayal from hell.

 

[pessimism101]

I will only comment on Rumbles 1993-Present since all Rumbles before that did not have the guarenteed WrestleMania title match stipulation. SO...

1993 - WHO WON: Yokozuna; WHO SHOULD HAVE WON: Undertaker. I say Undertaker mainly because the way he was eliminated was completely unfair (by a non-participant) and the match he had at WrestleMania IX against said participant was atrocious. Undertaker deserved more and a Bret Hart/Undertaker match at WrestleMania IX would have been a saving grace for the the event.

1995: WHO WON: Shawn Michaels; WHO SHOULD HAVE WON: Owen Hart. Owen beat his brother, Bret, at WrestleMania X and, 3 months later, won the 1994 King of the Ring. It seems only fitting that Owen win the Royal Rumble and, whether or not he would have won at WrestleMania XI is irrelevent

1997: Wouldn't change much except for having Steve Austin win fairly and I would have kept the WWF Title on Bret Hart leading into WrestleMania 13

1999: WHO WON: Vince McMahon; WHO SHOULD HAVE WON: Triple H. The blow off for the Vince McMahon/Steve Austin feud SHOULD have been a match at WrestleMania and not an In Your House PPV a month before. Therefore, neither Vince nor Austin should have won. Triple H, on the other hand, had been getting increasingly more popular thanks to D-Generation X. WWF should have allowed Trips to ride the success of DX all the way to the main event at WrestleMania XV

2000: WHO WON: The Rock; WHO SHOULD HAVE WON: Kane. Kane's first title run was one of the most forgettable in WWE history as it only lasted a mere 24 hours, which basically makes the win pointless. By the year 2000, Kane became a big face and I would have preferred seeing Triple H vs. Kane for the WWF Title than the horrible four-person elimination match that took place (and was way too predictable). I'm not saying Kane needed to win at WrestleMania, but the match would have been better than what we got.

NOTES: The Royal Rumbles not listed, I wouldn't change anything about it (and I'm content with the results of Rumbles 2001-2010)

 

[King Booka]

Royal Rumble 2007 winner: The Undertaker. Winner should have been King Booker.

Why do you ask? Cause he's King.......................... Booka!!!!
Nah just playin Taker needed the win he's a 20 plus year vet he needed that on his resumé

 

[MMK]

It couldn't be Kurt Angle in '03, because he was already WWE Champion.

I disagree with you about Brock's WWE stint. With the exception of his last match with Goldberg, his WWE career was phenomenal.

No one had ever come in and made that kind of impact that early in their career.

I know Kurt was champion, In my version he wouldn't have been champion though. Brock's win was too predictable. He'd already won KOTR. Rumble was overkill. Plus, his time as the face of Smackdown was pretty forgettable. Things got better on that show when they started focusin on Eddie, Benoit and Angle IMO. I don't think Brock was ready to main event a Wrestlemania. Sort of like a modern day Diesel.

 

[god-soldier]

Royal Rumbles has had some much not needed winners here are my top pics for royal rumble winners:
1989: Randy Savage instead of John Studd it would have made the match with Hogan n Savage have a better build up if Savage elimanted hogan n went on too win the royal rumble
1990: Ultimate Warrior instead of Hulk Hogan Warrior elimamating Hogan would had more build up too the match at Wrestlemania
1993: Mr.Perfect instead of Yokozuna Mr.Perfect winning the royal rumble would have made a great main event against the Hitman bret Hart for wrestlemania 9 and we would have never seen hogan win the belt at the end and hog all the glory
1995: British Bulldog instead of HBK for one reason Bulldog was a bigger fan favorite and one of the biggest fan favorites in the WWE at the time and would have had a great match with Diesl and could have still resulted in him being a major heel in the end
1996: Vader instead of HBK Vader would have been the biggest heel in the WWF if he had won the Royal Rumble n the first with a debut win would have been major and put him over on the fans.

 

[Tenta]

I'm going to go ahead and say that the 1990 Royal Rumble should not have won by either Hogan or The Ultimate Warrior, because realistically, neither of them needed the win to build up anything. The fact that it was a title for title match was enough reason to buy into the match, and the fact that it was Hogan facing Warrior made it interesting enough of a concept. Perhaps the two should have eliminated one another, but by no means should either man have won that Royal Rumble.

The winner, instead, should have been Mr. Perfect. Look, the guy may have been a mid carder who hadn't even won the Intercontinental Championship, but you could tell the guy had the rocket strapped to his back for success. The man was getting the loudest boos out of the arena, and at the time, he did warrant the push right into the main event scene. He had entered at #30, so realistically, it would have made sense for him to win. It sets up the perfect wrestler to face Hogan or Warrior after Wrestlemania, as he had done something that neither man had done at the time, in winning a Royal Rumble. That itself can raise a man's profiles... He'd done something that neither Hogan nor Warrior done, which makes you instantly credible in the fans eyes. Yes, he had debuted only a couple years earlier, but everyone knew he was going to be a success, and he could have used the Rumble Win to boast more about his perfect resume.

 

[CobraVenom]

1993 - WHO WON: Yokozuna; WHO SHOULD HAVE WON: Undertaker. I say Undertaker mainly because the way he was eliminated was completely unfair (by a non-participant) and the match he had at WrestleMania IX against said participant was atrocious. Undertaker deserved more and a Bret Hart/Undertaker match at WrestleMania IX would have been a saving grace for the the event.

I couldn't disagree more with this post. How can you say that Undertaker deserved more? He had only been in the company for a little more than two fucking years. He didn't deserve shit at that time. Plus, Yokozuna was a top heel. Bret? Guess what? He was a top face. It made way too much sense for Yokozuna to win.

I loved how he was eliminated. Yes, it was with a guy who couldn't even lace up Bundy's boots, but it was still good.

As for this topic? Believe it or not, I've been satisfied with all the Rumble winners. If I had to pick one, I'd say Vader should have been given a fair shake and won the 97 Rumble. He was misused from day one in the WWF.

 

[BLeonard]

OK, 2 Royal Rumbles that I'd change, but both of them woul have the same winner...

1990: Hogan won, I'd have Mr. Perfect win it. Tenta basically nailed it a couple of posts above. Hogan, nor Warrior, needed this win and Perfect was one of the top, if not THE top heel at the time. Winning the Rumble would have solidified him as the #1 contender for the World Title after WrestleMania VI. Again, Tenta pretty much nailed it.

1993: Yokozuna won, I'd have Mr. Perfect win it. This takes a bit more explaining, but, at least in my opinion, would have set things up down the line a lot better than what they ended up being.

Looking at it simplisticly, you'd have a Mr. Perfect/Bret Hart WrstleMania IX main event, both of them were faces, with the title obviously on the line. But, there are other reasons I would have went this way:

1: Hulk Hogan. I have to believe that Vince felt that the WWF needed Hogan at this time, or Hogan likely wouldn't have even been on the card, much less won the title at WrestleMania. Even after Hogan won, I don't recall him ever defending the belt between WrestleMania and King of the Ring, where he lost to Yokozuna two months later. Hopefully, we all agree that Hogan winning the belt at WrestleMania IX really didn't do ANYONE any good, except for Hogan. With a Perfect/Hart main event, Hogan likely isn't there, Beefcake likley stays injurd in storyline and Money Inc has a Tag Title match against most likley the Legion of Doom.

2: Yokozuna. OK, he was being pushed bigtime as a big heel sumo wrestler. Fine. But, he debuted at Survivor Series 1992 (at least on PPV) and, until the Rumble, who did he face? Virgil and Jim Duggan were the only 2 I remember and he might have just jumped Duggan. Was there anyone else? If there wasn't, no wonder Vince gave the belt back to Hogan... Yoko's resume wasn't exactly the resume of a WWF Champion.

3: Scott "Razor Ramon" Hall. If you recall, the Royal Rumble 1993 Championship match was Bret Hart vs Razor Ramon. Hart won and Hall ended up facing Bob freaking Backlund at WrestleMania. Had Ramon won the title, you'd now have an interesting Ramon vs Perfect WrestleMania main event (Heel vs Face) where the two had already had a sort of a history, as they were on opposite sides of the 1992 Survivor Series tag match, where Perfect teamed with Savage and Ramon teamed with Flair. In fact, on RAW the very next night after the 1993 Rumble, Perfect beat Flair in a "Loser leaves WWF" match. Having Perfect win the Rumble, beat Flair and then chase Ramon for the belt at WrestleMania, at least in my opinion, would have been much better than what happened at WrestleMania IX... Of course, I don't know if Ramon's "demons" were around at that time to make this a real possibility.

In short, having Perfect win the Rumble in 93 would have at least provided many more options, all of which would have kept Hogan off the card, which was what I felt really hurt Wrestleania IX.

-Bill