The Royal Rumble "Wrestlemania" Stipulation

[MMK]

I believe it's time to do away with the whole "winner of the rumble goes to wrestlemania" stipulation. First of all, the winner doesn't usually main event wrestlemania. Del Rio was in the opening match last year, while Edge was somewhere in the mid card. In the 90's fighting for the belt at Mania was the end all be all, but now the Undertakers streak and special attraction matches like Hogan/Rock or Rock/Cena have surpassed the title in terms of what matters most at Wrestlemania. Also, the stipulation itself is passe and overdone. But more importantly, when the winner of the Royal Rumble is to be granted a title shot at Wrestlemania, the field of potential credible Rumble winners dwindles from 30 to 3 or 4. It makes the Rumbles too predictable for my taste.

So I propose a new stipulation. Why not, next year or the year after that, have the Undertaker announce that this will be his last Wrestlemania and therefore this will be the last oppurtunity for someone to end his undefeated streak. Then at the Royal Rumble have the stipulation be that the winner gets to face the Undertaker. It is an open invitation Rumble meaning anyone can enter who wants the oppurtunity to face Taker. Shawn Micheals could even surprise everyone by entering at some point in an attempt to have one last chance. He doesn't have to win, but it would make sense for him to at least show up and try. Lesnar, Austin, Rock, Mankind, Diesel, Edge, Flair, Hogan, or even that fake Undertaker from 1994, could show up if at all possible. Basically anyone from Takers past who carries a grudge agaist him and would like one last shot at him could enter as well as current stars of course.

The Royal Rumble needs to have a payoff, I don't argue that, there needs to be a reward for the winner, but it doesn't always have to be a title shot at Wrestlemania. Perhaps there's something else the winner would want more. Like a chance to face Undertaker. Perhaps the winner could get to choose his own reward, and he has until next years Rumble to make good on it. Perhaps they choose a triple threat with both champions where both titles are on the line. Or on a much lesser scale, maybe this is the way CM Punk finally gets his own ice cream bar. ha!

 

[#hamler]

I believe the WWE has tweaked the Rumble the last couple of years. If you listen to the commentators, they always declare a Championship match at Wrestlemania for the Rumble winner - never a main event spot. While I believe challenging the Undertaker streak at Wrestlemania would make for an intriguing storyline for a Rumble winner in the future, they should not make that a regular thing. Royal Rumble and Championship opportunity at Wrestlemania go hand in hand; it's the start of the Road to Wrestlemania.

It's a tradition, and it's worked for 25 years now; why mess with that? World Championships are supposed to mean alot to a superstar. It means the WWE as a company trusts you enough to draw in the occasional viewer. Winning a World Heavyweight Championship opportunity is what everyone in the WWE locker room should want the most. The Royal Rumble shows that; when the dust settles and there are two or three guys left in the Rumble, the crowd rises to their feet, you realize this is all for a Championship opportunity. It isn't just for a World Title opportunity; it’s a guaranteed spot at Wrestlemania, the biggest show of the year - why would someone pass that up?

 

[The Idiot]

I disagree.

Not only should they keep the "winner goes to Wrestlemania" stipulation but they should not lie to the fans and put them in the opening match like they did last year with ADR. The winner "Gets a title shot in the main event" is something they need to say to clarify the importance of winning the Rumble.

I think one of these years they should do a "Flair Rumble" and put the WWE title on the line....this, of course, is after they unify the WWE and World titles and have 1 major championship like they had in the past. Perhaps after WM 29 or 30 I think they should do one of these and would make it very exciting.

Then the Elimination Chamber would decide the #1 contender. Only for 1 year though to change things up a bit, other than that they should keep the Rumble the same to determine who goes to main event Mania.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

There's an old saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the WWE audience looks forward to the Royal Rumble, so there's no reason whatsoever for the WWE to mess with something that's been working for over two decades.

As cool as The Undertaker's streak is, having a Rumble with the winner facing him at WM is a terrible idea. Potentially becoming a main eventer by defeating the reigning WWE or World Heavyweight Champion at the biggest wrestling ppv of the year...well..I mean..c'mon, it just works. Why? Because it's logical. It's an opportunity for someone to rise to the occassion and maybe emerge as a huge star afterward. It's believable, so fans accept it and why shouldn't they?

Besides, having the Rumble winner face Taker is a double edged sword. On one hand, if the Rumble winner doesn't beat Taker, then it makes that wrestler winning the Rumble match a waste of time. In TNA last year, Bobby Roode won the BFG Series but didn't win the title at the BFG ppv, which served to make the BFG Series in and of itself seem like a waste of time. As for all the potential legends you mentioned, it's just not realistic. There's nothing to suggest that Brock Lesnar is even really interested in returning to WWE, Austin & Rock are possible but unlikely, Foley is truly over the hill, Kevin Nash's time in a WWE ring is all but over as he's in pretty rough shape, Flair should never wrestle again and he's signed to TNA, Edge can't wrestle anymore or he risks paralyzing himself, Hogan is definitely over the hill and signed with TNA and the "fake Undertaker" Brian Lee? Sorry man, but this is nothing but a pure pipe dream that, in my opinion, would probably look much better on paper than it would probably turn out in actual execution. If Taker's streak is to ever end, personally, it needs to be ended by someone in which ending the streak will really have meant something. Austin, Rock, Shawn Michaels, Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Mick Foley have won over 50 World Championships between them and are either already or are future WWE Hall of Famers. They have no need of anymore feathers in their caps because their caps are overflowing with feathers as it is. If someone was to end Taker's streak, it should be a young gun on the WWE roster like Sheamus, Wade Barrett, Dolph Ziggler, Cody Rhodes, Daniel Bryan, CM Punk or someone along that order. You know, guys that still potentially have lots of years and lots of potential accomplishments ahead of them in their careers.

As for the suggestion of allowing the Rumble winner to pick his own reward and having a year to do so, it's basically just MITB without the MITB briefcase. Again, what logical purpose would this serve?

 

[Headman]

I disagree.

Not only should they keep the "winner goes to Wrestlemania" stipulation but they should not lie to the fans and put them in the opening match like they did last year with ADR. The winner "Gets a title shot in the main event" is something they need to say to clarify the importance of winning the Rumble.

I think one of these years they should do a "Flair Rumble" and put the WWE title on the line....this, of course, is after they unify the WWE and World titles and have 1 major championship like they had in the past. Perhaps after WM 29 or 30 I think they should do one of these and would make it very exciting.

Then the Elimination Chamber would decide the #1 contender. Only for 1 year though to change things up a bit, other than that they should keep the Rumble the same to determine who goes to main event Mania.

That's not lying to fans. It's just being smart. If they're going to have someone like ADR win the Rumble to be unpredictable they can't have him headline the show. I mean Edge vs Del Rio in the main event of WM? Please. The winner gets a title match, but if a scrub wins the Rumble it would be dumb to end the show with a match that people don't care about.

I actually support the idea of getting rid of the WM title shot stipulation. I think the winner of the Rumble should get a title match. Not a MITB type situation, but they should earn the right to have the next shot at the champion. I would love to see unexpected people win the RR if it didn't mean seeing people like ADR co-main event wrestlemania.

 

[Davi323]

The way the Royal Rumble is set up right now is perfectly fine. I don't care if the ADR/Edge match went first last year, the winner gets a TITLE match, not a main event match. I admit that the terminology sometimes gets jumbled, where they are using the terms interchangeably, but the chance to win the WWE or World Heavyweight title is a FAR greater prize, storyline wise, than "main eventing".

After Wrestlemania, the Rumble PPV is by far my second favorite PPV, and the match itself is easily my favorite gimmick match. I started looking forward to this year's Rumble immediately after Wrestlemania ended. One of main reasons that I love the match so much is because of the title shot stipulation. This is the start of the Road to Wrestlemania, the process to determine the matches, and along with the Elimination Chamber and Wrestlemania itself, is the best damn 3 months of the year. I have more fun watching wrestling between January and the first week of April than I do any other time of year, and that is because of the Rumble. Don't fuck with it.

 

[Midnite Express 2009]

I think the WrestleMania stipulation needs to be tweeked a bit because of a few things including having 2 Champions and then the Elimination Chamber match the following month in Feb. There's too many "if so & so wins this particular match then they get a title shot" and it just kinda dilutes the whole RR match in a way. You have RR, Money in the Bank (or had Money in the Bank), the Elimination Chamber match (which really doesn't promise a title match but it's a title match nonetheless, and so on. Heading into WrestleMania there really shouldn't be all the multi matches where there's a variety of people who have a chance at going to WrestleMania especially when it's pretty clear from guessing the top teir of the worthy list of possible Main Event guys.

I'm not sure what a best tweek would be. I don't think have separate RR matches would do well and I don't think actually have the title on the line as in the Flair Rumble would do either. The only thing I can think of is to cut out the Elimination Chamber match or move it after WrestleMania. But indeed something needs to change.

 

[Peoples_Champ]

I think one of these years they should do a "Flair Rumble" and put the WWE title on the line....this, of course, is after they unify the WWE and World titles and have 1 major championship like they had in the past. Perhaps after WM 29 or 30 I think they should do one of these and would make it very exciting.

Then the Elimination Chamber would decide the #1 contender. Only for 1 year though to change things up a bit, other than that they should keep the Rumble the same to determine who goes to main event Mania.

I think this is a brilliant idea. They don't need to unify the titles to do it either - just leave one of the titles without a champion (either stripped or dropped due to injury / "injury") out of the December PPV and then on Raw have Triple H or Vince come out to say that the winner of the Rumble gets that title.

It would make switching to another brand that much easier for Creative, plus a whole host of storylines could come out of this, culminating in an Elimination Chamber match for the #1 contender spot.

 

[lil bitch Kid]

The bog thing isn't the change to the spot on the card, it's a change in the meaning of the words MAIN EVENT. In WWE-land, main event no longer means last match. Since the start of the 2 hour Raw domain, this has been apparent. When the E announces the MAIN EVENT of Raw a week ahead, that match is usually the first match or the cross over match between hours 1 and 2. Rarely does anything that is announced ahead of time actually go on last on Raw. With the advent of the brand extension, and 2 MAIN titles, 'the MAIN EVENT' has become even more muddied. Actually, as I write this, I've been thinking. When, in the history of all the varients of SNME and TME did the title match, or MAIN EVENT go on last?

All this to really say that it is the term in WWE eyes that is different than that of the fans.

 

[gwarren]

Lots of you are missing the point, the Rumble is still prestigious unlike MITB because WM is prestigious too. MITB is just a random cash in, the Royal Rumble is a guaranteed cash in on the Grandest Stage of them All. As long as WM remains prestigious, so does the Rumble and it's prize.

 

[blairvb79]

MMk yes that does sound interesting for one royal rumble to have takers streak on the line at wm but what happens after that it seems like you want long term change but haven`t thought too much afterwards. and if am not mistaken they never say main event for the last 2 years they have said a championship match of their choice at wm. Only announcer that would be foolish enough to perhaps say main event is Cole but when does anyone really listen to him. the only thing i would like to see differently is have someone you wouldnt expect win it and they go after the world title just to bring back the idea that anything can happen in the wwe concept that they obviously forgotten about. I don`t know but i would have been happy last year if a guy like santino actually won cuz that would have provided that `what` factor that has been missing.

 

[Brahma Bull]

I like how it is now. It is probably the second biggest ppv after wrestlemania (summerslam can suck it). The main reason being it is the big opportunity to go on to have a title match at wrestlemania. Is it easier to beat 5 other guys in the EC, sure, but the royal rumble just has a special feeling to it. The only part that I could agree with you though is doing one for taker next year. That may be a cool little change they do for a one off, but other than that possibility, I would keep it as is.

 

[WunNightStan619]

i think making Taker's streak up for grabs decreases the number of credible winners than the title match at wrestlemania stip. Who the hell wants to see 90% of the current roster as possibilities for his opponent? I think they should stick with the title stip, but simply keep the tradition of them being the main event...

 

[mastermax22]

In my opinion, last year's Wrestlemania was the worst of all time! They started the show with WHC match, which is the second biggest championship in the company. What does that say about how prestigious the WHC is? There was no MITB match, which was always one of the best matches of the show. And, to top it all off, there was interference in the main event of Wrestlemania!!! The main event of Wrestlemania is arguably the biggest match of the year, and there was a cheap finish! Then, the next night, they start the build to next year's Westlemania, as if Westlemania 27 meant absolutely nothing.

The Royal Rumble match should be one of the most important matches of the year, and it is. The whole concept of winner gets a title match at WM has worked for 25 years, and after Sunday, we will have even more reasons to watch Wrestlemania. I just think that the Royal Rumble needs to be more prestigious. A championship match at WM is what every superstar wants, but the opening match? The WHC match should have been either the match before or the match after Taker's match.

I think that the concept must be kept the same, but the actually WM match needs have more importance than "opening match". Even TNA is smart enough to know that something you give months of build too (BFG Series) deserves to be very high on the card. I know Rock vs Cena will probably be the literal main event, but putting the Royal Rumble title match as the main event will give much more prestige back to the Royal Rumble and to whatever championship is being defended.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The reason to change it is the predictability of it all... how many people got a little bit excited for a minute when it looked like Santino had won the Rumble... loads... cos it was unexpected... the first 2 winners were not champions but mid carders (Duggan and Studd) then Hogan started the trend for main eventers to win it and really the Rumble suffered as a result.

This year sounds interesting in that champions can enter... I could see a scenario where if a champion enters the Rumble then their title is on the line. so if Bryan or Punk chose to enter and get tossed, the winner of the Rumble gets their belt. Imagine if Trips set that up at the Rumble... both Bryan and Punk are the last 2 but they forgot Jeri-troll on the outside... he eliminates both and is Undisputed champ... only for Taker to return... Now THAT would blow it wide open.

 

[Trill Co$by]

Technically, when you're facing off for the World title, that IS the main event. WWE has the habbit of have three or more main event worthy matches at WrestleMania. A WHC title match, a WWE title match, and the Streak match are all main event worthy. And all of those matches, ARE Main Events.

WWE isn't lying when they say "Winner main events WrestleMania" because they do. Sure, it may not be THE last match, but it is still a Main Event. Not to mention, name one time when the winner of the Rumble wasn't given that two-three month period to strengthen their believable contenderships?

I personally love the way the Rumble is set up, and find that complaining about it is literally grasping for straws at this point. As someone said on the first page, "If isn't broken, don't fix it."

WWE has a knack of doing the opposite, but this is the one thing that has stayed the same and I'm proud of that.

 

[martymcfly]

In some ways, I like the royal rumble the way it is; it is actually the only PPV I regularly order.

However, I am not a big fan of the "winner gets a title shot at wrestlemania" stipulation, because as the original poster stated: "the field of potential credible Rumble winners dwindles from 30 to 3 or 4. It makes the Rumbles too predictable for my taste."

I agree completely with that. The winner almost always is just one of the usual suspects. One thing I just don't understand is the general logic that we've all sort of accepted with a wink and a shrug that somehow, being regularly in or near the main event scene somehow magically makes you better able to hold on to the ropes at various points and prevent yourself from going over. Yes, there are exceptions, but generally those in the main event are better at staying inside.

Every year, the announcers tout that anyone can win this thing, but somehow those low on the totem pole absolutely suck at preventing themselves from being tossed over the top rope with minimal effort.

I don't agree with the challenge the undertaker stipulation, but I think a more interesting twist would be instead of a guaranteed wrestlemania title shot, to win a money in the bank briefcase. I am aware that it wouldn't work right now with money in the bank pay per views throwing out briefcases left and right every year, but if the royal rumble was the only time a MITB briefcase shows up, I don't think having that prize would in any way take away from the excitement of the royal rumble match. I also think that would add more unpredictability, because then the winner would not necessarily have to be someone currently in the main event.

 

[Defekt]

I don't think the Royal Rumble is predictable, especially now that the titles are so devalued. Del Rio was a long shot last year. I have no idea who will win this year.

There are front runners, but there would be no matter the prize. You think Tyson Kidd is gonna go over that many guys?

I agree, the Rumble's prize isn't as coveted as it used to be, both because the world titles have lost value, and because more often than not, the winner is not the main event.

Your idea about the UT is ok, but I think unifying the world titles, and restoring prestige to the championship would help make the Rumble more important.

As far as granting the winner anything he wants, I don't like it. From a kayfabe standpoint (and real life to I suppose) a championship/streak match at Wrestlemania is the pinnacle of a wrestler's career. Anything else would be secondary.

 

[Aberle4Life]

The whole concept of winner gets a title match at WM has worked for 25 years,.

I'm not just picking on you because I've seen it a few times from other posters; I just wanted to clarify that the Royal Rumble winner hasn't always gotten an automatic championship match at WrestleMania. They started that stipulation in the 1993 Rumble when Yokozuna won it.

I see the pros and cons in the stipulation, so I'm not totally sure where I come down on this one. Mostly, I think I want the stipulation to remain because of the extra importance it brings to the Rumble match. However, I would like to see someone unlikely win it (such as Santino almost did last year). The problem with that, obviously, is that you can't have someone like Santino wrestle for the championship at WrestleMania (I like Santino, mind you, but c'mon). So, I'm torn.

If they did have some underdog win it, I suppose there are ways to get them out of the 'Mania match through them losing the spot in a stipulation during a match on RAW or Elimination Chamber.

 

[Khalifa]

You have got to keep the same stipulation for the Rumble. It builds up superstars and can make them into megastars and it always has a good story to it (Mysterio, Benoit). Del Rio will always be considered a main eventer because of his Rumble win. If the Rumble had a different stipulation it wouldn't mean anything. For example who has won the most Battle Royals for their career? You wouldn't know and thats how the Rumble would eventually turn into if it were to change.

Like I said before as well, it builds people up. One good one in the Rumble is considered a good push, which it is. You don't even have to win the Rumble for it to do wonders to you. Also with the way that superstars "want" to win the Rumble it makes it even better if you win because fans will go home saying "Wow HHH really wanted that victory but Randy was just too good" and etc. So just for the fact that it has such a high value to it means it should stay the same.

 

[MCMG]

Would two smaller Rumbles on the same night work. Maybe have a 20-man Rumble where the winner faces taker and a 20-man rumble where the winner gets a shot at the world title.

The tradition continues and the fans get something new. The main-eventers would appear in both matches and then the rest would just be mid-carders adamant on achieving their destiny to either - end taker's streak or to win a world title.