What about a "real" royal rumble?

[Hillali2]

So I was thinking about Brock Lesnars win at Summerslam and how he has been booked lately and I can't see anyone that (at the moment) can legitimately beat him. He's being booked as a real fighter. Thinking ahead to the royal rumble in January, I wondered what if wwe book this years rumble as a more competitive, realistic contest as the winner will likely face lesnar at wm31. By this I mean, no gimmick entrants, all 30 entrants legitimately have a chance to win and compete against lesnar for the title. What if all 30 entrants were announced before the match? Would people miss the Santinos or gobbledy gookers? Could it help serve as the launching platform for a roman reigns or bray wyatt?

So would help make better competition for Brock Lesnar?

Would people miss the gimmick entrants to the rumble if wwe took a more serious approach?

Would it help enhance the match or wm31 main event?

 

[Starkist]

No this would not work. Why, because if it was "real" then someone who we wouldn't to see win the Rumble might. Also, if it was real, how would you eliminate the bigger guys like Show, Henry, Rusev, and add in Khali if he was to be featured in the rumble.

This wouldn't make anything good for Lesnar if the match was to be real. If the Rumble was to be a real and then the Wrestlemanina match scripted, how would that make any sense? Lesnar is a beast of a human being and in a real match against any of the WWE roster might end up a disaster.

The entrance music is so you know who is coming out next, to make the crowd pop. It wouldn't make much sense to have matches early with music then all of a sudden there is no music for the Rumble itself. I get your concept and it is not half bad, but for the idea of everyone, well not everyone in the world but the majority knowing it is scripted is not going to make this idea work. It would be like the XFL all over again only in one night.

 

[Mudlup50]

I don't think it'd change anything, I know I personally enjoy the less serious competitors. Does it change how much the winner is over? I don't think so. It seems the Rumble winner usually is over or is booked dominantly beforehand(for example Orton winning it a few years back he punted Vince in the head the week before). Does eliminating a Stardust instead of a Santino make Reigns look better? Not really when he eliminates 9 other guys. maybe it's just me

 

[Hillali2]

No this would not work. Why, because if it was "real" then someone who we wouldn't to see win the Rumble might. Also, if it was real, how would you eliminate the bigger guys like Show, Henry, Rusev, and add in Khali if he was to be featured in the rumble.

This wouldn't make anything good for Lesnar if the match was to be real. If the Rumble was to be a real and then the Wrestlemanina match scripted, how would that make any sense? Lesnar is a beast of a human being and in a real match against any of the WWE roster might end up a disaster.

The entrance music is so you know who is coming out next, to make the crowd pop. It wouldn't make much sense to have matches early with music then all of a sudden there is no music for the Rumble itself. I get your concept and it is not half bad, but for the idea of everyone, well not everyone in the world but the majority knowing it is scripted is not going to make this idea work. It would be like the XFL all over again only in one night.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that the rumble be a real unscripted match, I'm asking the question, what if it was scripted and booked to look like it was more real and legitimate?

 

[Starkist]

I'm not suggesting for one minute that the rumble be a real unscripted match, I'm asking the question, what if it was scripted and booked to look like it was more real and legitimate?

It still wouldn't change much to it. Whether it was scripted to look more real, or not scripted. It would be the same answer as my original response. It just wouldn't really work. If it was scripted to be more real then the bigger guys would have a better advantage than ever before. Just wouldn't make much sense.

 

[Slash-LN]

The surprise entrants are part of the fun of it. (meaning the ones like say Doink the Clown).

I get where you're coming from though.

I'm not sure that it would really make much difference in the end though.

 

[#tamale]

Battle royals are boring and you want to take away the one element which makes the RR fun?

Don't mess with the formula. Just make sure your winner is a strong character. That's it.

 

[Catacomb]

some of the better rumbles imo(89,92,98) didnt rely on gimmicky surprise entrants, and are still enjoyable years later. i wouldnt mind wwe putting up a serious rumble this year, itd be a refreshing change of pace.

 

[Bagpipes]

I'm not sure there are 30 "non-gimmick" wrestlers who legitimately pose a threat to Lesnar so it might not make that Mich difference to include them or leave them out.

 

[TheICChampion]

Well, while I enjoy seeing old WWE Superstars come back for nostalgia pops, I don't think it adds anything to the Rumble itself. It should be 30 guys who legitimately have a shot to win. I mean, for the last 3 years I think they've had announcers come in and compete, and to me that's just ridiculous. They've had women enter the Rumble, legends, etc, who no one believed had even an ice cube's chance in hell of winning, so what was the point of them coming in? Surprise entries? OK, why not someone like Daniel Bryan, Rey Mysterio, or Wade Barrett? Jericho made a surprise entry last year, and it was awesome. More so because he had a chance to win it. So, if that's what the OP means by being more "real", then I'm all for it.

 

[Mudlup50]

Okay being as everyone thinks half the participants are losers:

RR 2014 the only person who was a joke was El Torito...you can add in tag guys if you want, but Edge/Christian/Jeff Hardy would argue that point.

RR 2013: Santino I guess you can include, Slater is a jobber so why not, the Godfather obviously wouldn't win...so we have 3 guys?

RR 2012 is where it gets bad: Foley, Ricardo Rodriguez, Santino, Lawler, Booker T, Cole, Duggan, Kharma and Road Dogg. That's 10 guys...so again, it's getting better

 

[willross]

There are usually 2 things you can always count on that's fun and thus a draw for the Rumble.

1. Who out of the top 3 or 4 legit guys can win?
2. What surprise entrants will we get?

You want to take away 50% of the Rumble Matches drawing power?
Outside the box? Yes. Dumb? Yes.

 

[Headman]

It would be nice if the booking leading up to the Rumble erased the idea of a sure thing as far as Roman Reigns is concerned. Personally I wish the automatic Wrestlemania title shot stipulation would be retired.

 

[The Boss]

It would be nice if the booking leading up to the Rumble erased the idea of a sure thing as far as Roman Reigns is concerned. Personally I wish the automatic Wrestlemania title shot stipulation would be retired.

I totally agree with retiring the WrestleMania stipulations. I've been saying it for years. Ever since they implemented that rule the event has gone from one that can be won by anyone with the luck of the draw playing a major factor to only 3 or 4 guys that could win. The rest are just filler. In the part their were always two winners. The last man standing and the man who lasted the longest. Give the winner a title shot on RAW instead.

 

[Hillali2]

There are usually 2 things you can always count on that's fun and thus a draw for the Rumble.

1. Who out of the top 3 or 4 legit guys can win?
2. What surprise entrants will we get?

You want to take away 50% of the Rumble Matches drawing power?
Outside the box? Yes. Dumb? Yes.

If the only thing holding your interest in the royal rumble is surprise entrants and gimmicks then the match is a failure before it even takes place. If the rumble is taken more seriously, then there should be more than 3 or 4 guys that can win it. Id rather see 5 guys from nxt try to make a name for themselves in the match (see rusev 2014) than watch Doink the clown or santino get laughed at on their way over the top rope after spending a short amount of time in the ring and contributing nothing to the match and the building of stars.

 

[L@RISANO]

It would be nice if the booking leading up to the Rumble erased the idea of a sure thing as far as Roman Reigns is concerned. Personally I wish the automatic Wrestlemania title shot stipulation would be retired.

At this point, I'd love a swerve instead of Reigns winning this year's Rumble(he can always win it later on,lMO), have someone else win it, and have Brock destroy that person, then have Reigns step up as the WWE's Last Hope against the Beast Incarnate. Would be a much more engaging and less generic story,tbh.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

It's a battle royale.. from a reality perspective it is completely different than any other contest. It is basically Sumo but with 5 foot ropes to get the opponent over, not only would it not work as a legit contest but would cause countless injuries from ropeburns, bad landings, overexertions on joints and muscles to lift opponents and everything in between.

If they want to book the Rumble to be more legit, there is a simple solution without altering the competitors OR the format except for one thing...the one thing I have said they should do for years... TAKE AWAY THE DAMN TITLESHOT!

The concept never truly worked, Yoko won it and then it was Bret and Lex's double elimination/title matches... the idea of the headliner of Mania being the winner of that match should have ended there... 20 years later and this year in particularly proved how damaging it is to the booking of Mania, it pens it into a corner when what is needed in today's WWE is a bit more flexibility. Money in The Bank is a far more exciting concept and a guaranteed IC V World Champ/title for title match at Night Of Champions, with a new IC tourney right after would replace it more than adequately. Right now the whole path to the main event is so cookie cutter than anyone who takes it is tainted and almost doomed... it's why Bryan pre-injury got over SO much and Brock is working so well this time... it's not the normal "conveyor belt" of win IC/US, then Win Rumble, Win at Mania, Turn Face (if heel) that we've seen for nearly everyone...

The Rumble should be what the Andre Invitational was and what it was for those first 3 years... a special event, the winner gets a prominent place at Mania sure, but not the title shot... all it's become is "spot the next guy on the conveyor belt" and we can see who that's gonna be so far ahead we're ready to crap on it and basically it then becomes an albatross around their neck.

 

[e-wwe]

I don't think this would work. The royal rumble is of course about the start of the road to wrestlemania. But the rumble wouldn't be the rumble without its surprise entrants etc. It's one of the biggest draws. I think we can all agree that roman reigns is currently on path to win the royal rumble, given his record breaking rumble he had this year and his push to the top ever since (although personally I don't think he is ready) Sometimes there are surprise returns that win it, sometimes the returns are to draw the crowd, Diesel for example