Which Royal Rumble matches would you have scripted differently?

Discussion in 'Old School Wrestling' started by LODemolition, Aug 12, 2017.

  1. LODemolition

    LODemolition Championship Contender

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    158
    When I look back at the history of the Royal Rumble, my personal favorite ppv of the year, I see at least a handful that I would have gone with a different winner. There are some wrestlers who have accomplished everything imaginable except win the Rumble so this would help complete their career. In other cases, I would change it just for the simple fact that I hate how it played out and thought there was someone else much more deserving.

    Here is my short list of Royal Rumbles that I would go back in history and rewrite if I could, in chronological order.

    1988: Andre the Giant (actual winner "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan)

    This is an easy one. It was the inaugural Royal Rumble and much like the first King of the Ring going to a legend in Bret Hart, they should have done the same here. Of course they didn't know that the Rumble would one day become the spectacle that it is today, but it would have been a nice reward for Andre who was in the twilight of his amazing career.

    1989: Hulk Hogan (actual winner Big John Studd)

    Before you say whoa, give Hogan 3 straight Rumble wins?! No, I would not have had him win in 1990 or '91, especially '90 since he was already WWE Champion and was the last person who needed the win. I realize they hadn't yet added the stipulation of the winner getting a title shot at WrestleMania, but it would have made perfect sense to have Hogan win it here and watch Randy Savage pace frantically in the locker room, realizing he would have to defend against his former Mega Power partner. I would have also been fine with Ted DiBiase winning here. Him buying the 30th entry spot was classic.

    1990: Mr. Perfect (actual winner Hulk Hogan)

    This is one of the Rumbles that irks me the most. Hogan was already the champ and should have been in his own match that night. Hennig was on his way to his first Intercontinental Championship win shortly after WrestleMania VI and this would have been a great way to kick off the push of one of the greatest performers we will ever see. And if anyone deserved to go bell to bell and win it from the #1 entry, it's Mr. Perfect.

    1991: "Macho King" Randy Savage (actual winner Hulk Hogan)

    At this point they were still shoving Hogan down our throats at every opportunity and it became evident the following year that the fans were growing tired of the same old same old when they booed after he eliminated Sid from the outside after already being thrown over the top rope himself. In my opinion, WrestleMania VII's main event should have been Ultimate Warrior vs. Randy Savage exactly as it was, only with the WWE Championship on the line as well as I wouldn't have had Warrior lose to Sgt. Slaughter. Hogan and Slaughter made perfect sense for WM7 in the midst of the Gulf War, but did not need the title. Warrior/Savage didn't necessarily need it either, but it would have been that much better if it was for the gold as well. Remember the whole feud began when Warrior refused Savage's demand for a title shot. How could Warrior legitimately still say no after the Macho King outlasted 29 other men?

    2011: CM Punk (actual winner Alberto Del Rio)

    We leap 20 years forward now where the stipulation of a title shot at WrestleMania is a tradition, but for the first time ever, the Rumble grows from a 30 to a 40-man battle royal. Thank God they haven't gone back to this format as I don't have to tell you it was a disaster. CM Punk's dominance in the early stages of this one after drawing #1 was one of the greatest performances in Rumble history. Several times he was the only man in the ring and had time to talk trash on the microphone while waiting for the next competitor. I believed Orton and CM Punk for the WWE Championship made much more sense at WrestleMania XXVII than Miz and Cena.

    2012: Chris Jericho (actual winner Sheamus)

    I might be nitpicking with this one. Sheamus was still a fresh face, but I'm a huge Jerichoholic. Y2J has done everything there is to do in WWE except win the Royal Rumble and Money in the Bank. And although Jericho went on to challenge CM Punk for the WWE Championship at WM28 anyway, it would have been great to see him win this. Sheamus could have just as easily still been booked for the WHC match with Daniel Bryan.

    2014: Daniel Bryan (actual winner Batista)

    This was a definite no-brainer as the fans were so behind Daniel Bryan on the road to WrestleMania XXX that they had no choice but to add him to the main event. The fans were outraged when #30 was revealed and it wasn't Daniel Bryan, so at that point they were going to boo whoever won it just because it was clearly not going to be him. Although he had wrestled against Bray Wyatt earlier in the night, you still couldn't help but wonder why he wasn't even an entrant. The WWE universe never really welcomed Batista back and they had to soon turn him heel after their reaction to his win didn't turn out how they had planned.
     
    #1
  2. tdmoon

    tdmoon Pre-Show Stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    116
    I agree with a lot of these changes, especially with Andre getting the first win. That would have been a nice accomplishment for him, he deserved it.
    Wasn't Don Muraco the first King of the Ring, though? I think several wrestlers won it before Hart.
     
    #2
    ShinChan likes this.
  3. LODemolition

    LODemolition Championship Contender

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    158
    Sorry, I should have specified. I meant the first KOTR ppv tournament back in 1993.
     
    #3
  4. Wrestlingaholic

    Wrestlingaholic Championship Contender

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2014
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    103
    Out of interest, why do you think the 40-man Royal Rumble was a failure? I would argue that with the roster as stacked as it is today, it would make sense to expand it more often. Also, I think you are mixing up two Rumble matches: in 2011, Punk I don't think ever had the ring to himself. It was a year earlier, during his straight edge society run, where he would eliminate - promo - eliminate - promo etc. Having said that, as predictable as Del Rio winning was, I agree that Punk would have been a far better winner, and would have given us Edge v Punk as Edge's final televised match, which could have been epic.

    In fact, the more I think of this, the more I like it. Simply switch Punk with Del Rio so that Del Rio faces Orton at Wrestlemania. Given he was in the midst of a monster push, even a match against the calibre of Orton at WM would have been huge, even more so if he beat Orton, so yes, absolutely agree for two good reasons at least that CM Punk should have won the 2011 Royal Rumble
     
    #4
  5. The Perfect Max

    The Perfect Max I Am Jericho

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    154
    I have to agree that Sheamus winning the Royal Rumble in 2012 did seem a bit left-field, and what made things worse was the way that we got to the eventual CM Punk vs. Chris Jericho feud that we knew was going to happen anyway. The road to that feud would have been much better if Jericho had just won the Rumble, rather than lose that, lose the Chamber match, and then win a crappy battle royal on Raw. I feel like it was swerving for the sake of it. Having said that though, I wonder if Sheamus winning was to do with this win/loss record of Rumble winners at WrestleMania for years before him. Each winner from 2008-2011 had lost their WrestleMania title match, and Jericho went on to lose his match at WrestleMania anyway. Perhaps that was the logic.

    However, with 2012 standing, and with the ability to fantasy book a little bit further, I would have much preferred Jericho to have won this year. I feel like I'm in the minority when I say that I enjoyed the 2017 match, but I didn't necessarily agree with the victor. Orton vs. Wyatt amounted to nothing anyway so I don't really mind messing that up. Jericho vs. Owens should have been for the Universal Championship and I really don't care about whether the money match was actually Goldberg vs. Lesnar. Jericho and Owens had been carrying Raw for months and deserved to be rewarded. And I feel as if Jericho winning the Rumble by starting at 2 and being continuously knocked out of the ring until the end like in reality, only to then actually win the match, would have been incredibly fresh and satisfying, even if Jericho is a 20 year veteran. You then have the feud play out.
     
    #5
    ShinChan likes this.
  6. LODemolition

    LODemolition Championship Contender

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    158
    You are right, I did get my facts mixed up with Punk dominating at the 2010 RR and not 2011. I never really thought of that before, but I like your idea a lot of booking Edge vs Punk and Orton vs ADR. That would've been a great last match for Edge, whose WM27 bout with Del Rio was rather forgettable.

    As for the 40-man rumble match, imo it would have been fine in an era where the roster was deeper, but look at all the legends and jobbers they had to use to fill out the extra 10 spots. The fact that Santino was the runner up tells us all we need to know about this one. There's nobody who could be taken seriously as a winner who entered between Punk (#1) and Cena (#22).
     
    #6
  7. Psykohurricane55

    Psykohurricane55 Moderator
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    261
    Personally i think it really didn'T matter who won the rumble from 88 to 91 because their really wasn't any stake attach to it, so you could give it to any over babyface of the period and it would change a think since fans would go home happy no matter what so i wouldn't change the winner for those, i think that Duggan, big john studd and hogan made perfect sense for these rumble.

    Then after 92, they started giving a title shot to the winner and then while most of the time it made sense who won, the booking on how they went about it didn't so while i wouldn't have change the winners of these, they're some booking decision i would have change.

    royal rumble 93: why did it have to be Savage has the last guy with Yokozuna, really? Macho man was barely a wrestler at the time and the way i was booked in the rumble made him look even worst. Instead, i would have replace him by Backlund. Not really because Backlund was this huge push guy at the time, but they we're telling the story of this old guy running the gauntlet and trying to win the rumble. It would have made must more sense to have him stay until the end but having this huge obstacle in front of him only to fail.

    Royal rumble 94: Instead of having a double winners in luger and bret, why not found a way to screw over either Lex or Bret out of the rumble. Both storyline were there anyway. This felt like a way for them to not decide who they went with in the end and decide later who to push against yokozuna.

    So i don't have to much to say about 95 and 96 because 95 meant nothing really and 96 was made complete sense. I'm not also gonna go with the attitude era rumble because i don't remember that era anyway so i guessing it made sense.

    The only rumble i might have change the way they booked it would 2014, 2015,2016

    While i really like who won those matches, i really didn't like how they won it.

    Let's start with 2014

    I think that they should have use Bryan in the rumble at number 30 instead of mysterio, the only way i would have change thing would be have bryan come to the ring at number 30 and have HHH attack him from behind before he gets in. Then he throws him into the ring where he give the signal to batista to eliminate him and at the same time turns him heel. Then you have batista win the rumble.

    2015: I'm happy about reigns winning it, the only thing that bugged me was how bad it made rusev look in the process. Having Rusev stay outside for a long time only to get him be eliminate in seconds by reigns hurt him more then helped him. what i would have done instead is reigns eliminate whoever was left, then rusev comes from behind and almost eliminate reigns. Then they go into it for a couple of minutes before reigns founds a way to eliminate him.

    2016: My only problem with HHH winning was the way he won. The whole point of this match was for him to screw over reigns so why was reigns not the last guy in? as a matter of fact, why was Reigns taking out of the rumble midway through because he was supposedly injured only to come back without a scratch when he came back, if you wanted fans to hate reigns, they did a great job with this match. What i would have done instead. Have him run the gauntlet from number one, you have everybody trying to eliminate him without being successful and have i'm be the last man in the ring by the time number 30 arrived. While he's waiting for the last guy to come in, have HHH come in from behind and eliminates him. So that way, it makes it look like HHH screwed Reigns out of the match and his championship instead of having HHH look like a babyface while reigns look like the dumbest guy on the roster.
     
    #7
    LODemolition likes this.
  8. MWRedskins

    MWRedskins Mid-Card Championship Winner

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    99
    for me the only Royal Rumble match i would script differently that i can recall is the 2014 Royal Rumble.....the other winners usually had a storyline that WWE had in place for them that either started early on or they wanted to build a new young star.

    the problem with 2014 was 1) Batista wasnt a young star, he was a returning star that all of the sudden was getting a major push and the fans hated it....2) We've seen Orton vs. Batista.....3) Daniel Bryan was VERY over with the fans and they wanted to see him overcome the odds and win the Rumble.
    If he entered the rumble at say 3 or 4, the fans would've been behind Bryan the whole match screaming YES!! he was the perfect underdog at the time and the fans wanted to see him finally get one up on The Authority who've been calling him B-Plus. While they in the end, put the belt on Bryan, they seemed to do it because of the fans rejecting the main event. In my book, the plan for CM Punk was great and i wish he would've stuck with it and did that plan and beat Triple H. Punk could've easily made that feud work and Bryan should've won the Royal Rumble to face Orton....as for Batista, i think he should've fought some other heel who could've put him over as a face....but instead WWE forced him down the fans' throats and they booed him.
     
    #8
  9. relentless1

    relentless1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    546
    Likes Received:
    79
    Andre should've won the first one,
    Hogan should've won 89
    Warrior should've won 90
    Bret should've won 94 solo
    Taker should've won 97
     
    #9
  10. HeenanGorilla

    HeenanGorilla Championship Contender

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    538
    Likes Received:
    169
    Why should Andre have won the first one? Back then, it wasn’t “the first one”, it was the only one. It was an experiment offered on cable TV, for crying out loud. This wasn’t put in place to be one of the most treasured traditions for the next 30 years. I guarantee most of the people jumping on this “Andre should have won the first one” bandwagon don’t even know what Andre did on that show. He and Hogan had a contract signing for the rematch of their “controversial” WrestleMania III bout. As we—everyone, including the revisionists I’m addressing—know, that rematch was HUGE, in terms of TV ratings, Hogan getting screwed out of the title, the twin refs, DiBiase buying the title and the setup to WrestleMania IV. Knowing all that, since the people I’m talking to are the ones who feel the first Rumble should have been different, what does Andre winning another battle royal have to do with any of that?

    Yes, Andre was the king of battle royals. Ok…now what? He doesn’t need “first Royal Rumble winner” added to his résumé to stamp that fact. “Duggan was a bad choice to win the first one.” Why?? An extremely over wrestler winning this event THEN is deemed bad NOW because he didn’t have a title run afterwards? I’m sorry, it’s nonsense.

    Perfect or DiBiase winning in ‘90 or some of these other theories, those are fine. Those reasons can be argued. I don’t agree with all of the theories, but so what? Opinions are opinions. But to simply throw out “Andre should have won the first one” with no reasoning or explanation comes across as ridiculous.

    I don’t understand why people get wrapped up in who was “the first”. It’s the same people who wanted Undertaker to retire after 20-0 or 25-0…because round numbers mean something to these people for some unknown reason. I guess people expect everything to be tied up tight with no loose ends and look pretty or symmetrical when written in the non-existent history books.

    I don’t mean to get off track. Like I said, I don’t mind if you have an opinion that differs from mine, if there is thought behind it. But this Andre business…it just makes no sense.
     
    #10
    ServantofTwilight likes this.
  11. relentless1

    relentless1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    546
    Likes Received:
    79
    Andre winning the first one wouldve been a perfect cap on his career. He had the belt for about 30 seconds so this could've been his swan song.

    lol so you think that Hacksaw won the Rumble as an experimental push? You're talking about the guy who had the misfortune of being the same patriot gimmick as HULK HOGAN... No, the first one should've been a memorial to Andre, they were experimenting for sure; Pat Patterson has said that the idea of people entering the Battle Royal instead of leaving it was a brand new idea for the match type, so even if they didn't know it'd catch on what better way to cap it off than to have Andre be the winner of this experiment??
     
    #11
    LODemolition and tdmoon like this.
  12. HeenanGorilla

    HeenanGorilla Championship Contender

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    538
    Likes Received:
    169
    How in the world can you read what I wrote and get "Hacksaw won the Rumble as an experimental push" out of it? The experiment was the Rumble itself. Andre was active for years after the first Rumble. So maybe your "lol" should be saved for a swan song being given early. A memorial?!?! Now I get to "lol". So thanks.

    I had a hunch you didn't know what you were talking about. I just wanted to make sure.
     
    #12
  13. relentless1

    relentless1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    546
    Likes Received:
    79
    I know what you said and I addressed what you said. You said Hacksaw was very over and could've used the push; only hindsight says otherwise. I said that wouldn't ever be the case because his gimmick was done much bigger and better by Hogan, so either way they were throwing that win away to whoever; might as well have been Andre who was a true legend even at that time and was the master of the Battle Royal; are you missing something here that I haven't explained? Andre win = layup
     
    #13
  14. sikkbones

    sikkbones the root of all evil

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    39

    First rumble was 1988. Andres last big match was 2 years later at wrestlemania VI in 1990.

    Also who said the wrestlemania iii signing btw hogan and Andre was on the show?? You're off by a year.

    It might have been a wrestlemania IV promo.

    But I was at copps in 1988, I'm fairly certain of the date.
     
    #14
  15. LODemolition

    LODemolition Championship Contender

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    158
    He said it was the signing for the rematch of WM III
     
    #15
  16. HeenanGorilla

    HeenanGorilla Championship Contender

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    538
    Likes Received:
    169
    Thank you, LODemolition! I was starting to wonder if I was the only one who knew how to read.

    First to sikkbones… I said Andre was active for years after the first Rumble (January 1988). To which you tried to prove wrong by saying his last big match was at WrestleMania VI (April 1990). That is over 2 years later, which makes my original statement correct. Looks like reading AND arithmetic are weak points for you. Punctuation on the forum is not important in some cases—this one included; so, I’ll give you a pass on writing. LODemolition already pointed out where I am not off by a year, you didn’t (or couldn’t) read what I wrote. Thanks for letting me know where you were in 1988…maybe you should have been in school.

    To relentless1, you know what I said and addressed what I said? More like you still don’t know what I said and addressed something I didn’t. First you misread that I said Duggan winning was to give him an experimental push. Of course, that was an error on your part, which I addressed. But then, in defense of the proven error, you respond with yet another error?? Haha! “You said Hacksaw was very over and could’ve used the push; only hindsight says otherwise.” I did say he was extremely over, which he was, but I never mentioned a push. I addressed the Rumble itself only. You created a subsequent push out of thin air. Having a wrestler who was over with the crowd win that Rumble was a smart idea. Andre was a heel at the time and, as I mentioned in the post you continue to misread, was involved in an angle with Hogan, to which the Rumble win would have added nothing. “Are you missing something here that I haven’t explained?” No, I think I have seen everything you haven’t explained. I was just hoping you might explain them, including your “Hindsight says otherwise”. Otherwise to what? When you create things in your mind, like the push I never mentioned, you should provide details for those of us depending on what was written. Yes, Hogan and Duggan were both pro-USA. I’m quite sure that’s where the similarities end. “Andre win = layup” Duggan winning—or, to be fair, Jake or JYD among others—was a slam dunk. Andre winning was more like a three-pointer at the buzzer in an already decided game.

    While I wait for illiterate relentless1 to tell me that Andre never played basketball for the WWF, I want to say to those who can read that I do not think all ideas that I disagree with are bad. I would just like some reasoning behind it. Hell, if you say he was my favorite wrestler and I just wanted him to win, that makes more sense than this Andre having to win for no other reason than he was the best at battle royals. For example, I would have had Mr. Perfect win the Rumble in ’90. Some liked Hogan winning, some wanted someone else…that’s fine! All I wanted was a reason that Andre should have won the first one. So far, I have not gotten it.
     
    #16
    sikkbones likes this.
  17. THTRobtaylor

    THTRobtaylor Once & Future Wrestlezone Columnist

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,327
    Likes Received:
    861
    Ugh...

    Why did Duggan get this you REALLY don't know??

    Jim Duggan was intended to be a MASSIVE face in the WWF when he was signed in 87, on the level of Hogan eventually, hence his prominent debut at Wrestlemania 3. Duggan had been big in the UWF and gotten over fighting Ted DiBiase who had also signed... Their feud was planned to be big in the WWF too, perhaps even for the gold.

    BUT

    Duggan screwed up almost immediately by being arrested in a car with Iron Shiek for drugs... breaking the famous kayfabe rule of heels and faces never been seen together. The story went national in the media and Shiek was fired while Duggan was inches from being let go but Vince relented... the planned push was gone however.

    The Rumble win for him was as much a test to see how the fans would react to Duggan being pushed as the event itself... he didn't really get the reaction hoped for although the event itself did so they didn't give him the bigger push, settling on the patriotic borderline comedy gimmick instead (when he started he was wearing a bandana and wifebeater ala Dean Ambrose) with the nearest to a push really being the "King" title he won from Haku.

    Make no mistake, Duggan was supposed to win that match and there was a plan behind it. Sadly, the damage was done to him in that early few months with the simple mistake made by him.
     
    #17
  18. LODemolition

    LODemolition Championship Contender

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    158
    1993: Bret Hart (actual winner Yokozuna)
    1994: Owen Hart (actual winners Bret Hart/Lex Luger)


    A couple more I would change, looking back. Not that Yokozuna didn't deserve the push, because I actually liked him a lot back then. He was thrown into the role of the top heel in WWE when Ric Flair was on his way out. A bit too soon for my taste. He debuted shortly before Survivor Series '92, wins the Rumble 2 months later and headlines WrestleMania IX.

    If I can rewrite that whole timeline, I give Bret the Rumble win in '93 instead of being a co-winner the following year, and have Savage go into WM as the champion. We have a great passing the torch moment between Savage and Hart, the 2 top faces. Bret gets his first championship on the biggest stage there is rather than a house show and we end up finding out on a Saturday morning broadcast.

    Yokozuna can still be the one to kill Hulkamania at King of the Ring, but the title didn't need to be involed in that story. Bret drops the belt to Yoko at SummerSlam and regains it at the Rumble. Also, maybe you have the casket match between Yoko and Taker at Survivor Series '93 instead of the '94 Rumble, and Taker is healed up in time to come back for WMX. Owen wins the '94 Rumble, turns heel shortly after when he doesn't feel like Bret takes him seriously as a threat to his title. So we still have Bret vs Owen and possibly Yokozuna vs Undertaker at WMX in a legitimate double main event at the first Mania without Hulk. Luger is the odd man out, but he could have worked as an opponent for Savage rather than Crush in the falls count anywhere match or Hennig rather than throwing a striped shirt on him and having him referee.
     
    #18
    King Patrick Star likes this.
  19. King Patrick Star

    King Patrick Star K. O. T. R. 2007 -€“ Team Undisputed

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,067
    Likes Received:
    657
    Here is my list of changes.

    1988 – Andre The Giant – It’s the Royal Rumble!! Andre The Giant should have drawn number 1 or number 20 and won the entire thing. Either that or Andre The Giant and the Million Dollar Man should have been the final two SuperStars in the ring, then Virgil hands Ted DiBiase a bag full of money, who then proceeds to give it to Andre to buy the win.

    1989 – Hulk Hogan – This should have been the setup to the Mega Powers Exploding.

    1990 – Ultimate Warrior – This should have been the first match that the Ultimate Warrior wins and Hulk Hogan loses, to plant the seeds for WrestleMania VI.

    1997 – The Undertaker – Since Bret the Hitman Hart and Stone Cold Steve Austin faced each other at WrestleMania 13 anyway, they should have let the Undertaker win and go on to face the eventual WWE Champion, Sycho Sid.

    1999 – Stone Cold Steve Austin – There was really no point in having Vince McMahon win the Royal Rumble, but it is what it is.
     
    #19
    LODemolition likes this.
  20. Goldie

    Goldie Getting Noticed By Management

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    31
    1988- Andre the Giant. Earlier in his career there was the saying that Andre never lost a Battle Royal. Shame he didn’t fair well in Rumbles!
    Considering he would be WWF champ the next month (albeit briefly) this would have helped build him up to that.

    1989 – Ted Dibiase - if he would have actually won the Rumble by buying slot 30, that would have been a serious heat magnet!

    1991 – Randy Savage – He cost Warrior the title earlier in the evening, and this would have helped build up their fued for WM7 (remember that back in 1991 there was no stipulation that the Rumble winner gets the wrestlemania title shot… this came into effect 1993).

    1994 – Bret Hart. Have him the sole winner rather than his joint win with Luger. Considering Luger shot down the card not long afterwards

    1997 - Undertaker. He didn't eventually win one till 2007, so I'd give him the win earlier in his prime years. Sets him up nicely for challenging Sid

    1999 – Steve Austin. Having vince win was zany! Rock had the title shot at WM15 so why not give him the Rumble win to set it up?

    2009- Shawn Michales. Give Shawn one last hurrah! A Rumble win and title win before his retirement the following year. I was always amazed that Shawn only won the title once after his 2002 comeback… and that was in his 2nd match!

    2012- Chirs Jericho. Chris never won the Rumble… and in hindsight probably a more worthy winner than Sheamus

    2014 – Daniel Bryan. Boy was it an unpopular decision when Batista won. Considering the part timer would leave soon afterwards

    2016 – Dean Ambrose- Didn’t really like a 47 year old Triple H coming out of semi-retirement and leaving the ring as WWE champion
     
    #20
    LODemolition likes this.
  21. Tastycles

    Tastycles Turn Bayley heel

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    2,907
    Likes Received:
    1,515
    I can't understand why so many people want to change 1994. Without that ending there is no way you could have Bret lose to Owen at WrestleMania before winning the title and still have it make any sense. Given that that is some of the most compelling and clever booking of the 90s, it's pretty obvious why the ending was what it was.

    Similarly 1999 had the right winner. The reason that the Austin McMahon feud was so compelling is because the momentum continually shifted. Vince was winning, but then Commissioner Michaels turned the tide. The back and forth of minor victories are what sustained that feud and the outcome allowed Austin to face Vince one and one, which could never be the WrestleMania main event but was what the audience wanted.

    There's no point in changing any of the early ones as it doesn't matter, but I guess warrior winning in 1990 may have further showcased him.

    In 95 Michaels clearly wasn't ready to main event, so they should havekept him from winning till the following year. Bulldog, Razor Ramon or someone else who could credibly lose whilst challenging Diesel should have won.

    For the same reason it would have probably been better for someone other than Austin to win in 1997, though he should have come back in and eliminated Hart. It's difficult though as the booking changed so much due to Michaels' "injuries" that it's hard to tell what they wanted, but an Undertaker win would have worked well.

    The 2005 botched ending should have been the real ending.
     
    #21
  22. HeenanGorilla

    HeenanGorilla Championship Contender

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    538
    Likes Received:
    169
    This is what I mean. And I want to say that I have seen other posts by Goldie and have enjoyed them--whether or not I agreed with him in the past, I enjoy his posts.

    But, as you just said, Andre won the title shortly after this anyway. So, why would the Rumble need to be changed to an Andre win to help build him up to that title win? Andre did not win the battle royal on SNME going into WrestleMania III and I don't think that had ANY effect on that main event. Andre lost to Hogan at III--"first loss ever"--he was then the sole survivor, against Hogan's team at the inaugural Survivor Series. Their feud is still hot as we go into the inaugural Rumble, where they signed the rematch contract for the upcoming Main Event. What does Andre winning yet another battle royal, one that doesn't include Hogan, add to the upcoming Hogan/Andre title rematch?

    Your Savage suggestion also baffles me, but I think it is the same idea of a needless Rumble win to "help build up" a match that doesn't need help being built. Andre/Hogan and Savage/Warrior--without either having a Rumble winner--are still two of the most famous matches in WWE history. So, what would a Rumble win for Andre or Savage have added to either?
    Savage cost Warrior the title earlier in the night. That isn't enough to "help build" this match? He would have needed to also win a Rumble that the Warrior wasn't in?? What in the world does that have to do with the Warrior?? Their match was about Savage getting his title shot and Warrior getting revenge for his title loss. It needed "Savage won the Rumble" to add fuel to the fire??

    I agree DiBiase buying 30 and winning would have added heat in '89. I think THAT is a good suggestion. Not because I agree with you, but because his character needed heat at that point. He would go on to a nothing match with Beefcake at Mania V, so this would have helped him. But, Andre and Savage--there was just no need for it. And, not only was there no need for it, either of them winning the Rumble--Rumbles where their hated opponent was not even a contestant--would have added ANYTHING to their upcoming matches.

    Again, I like your posts and I do not need everyone to agree with me. I just don't see what in the world early Rumble wins would have added in these scenarios.
     
    #22
  23. Goldie

    Goldie Getting Noticed By Management

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    31
    Thankyou for your comments HeenanGorilla.
    I grew up as child in that early 90s era and love to reminisce.

    I was happy for Hogan to win the 1990 Rumble.... but thought him winning again in 1991 was just an ego booster for him.
    Most major top liner bonna fida guys from their eras won a rumble... Hogan, Taker, Austin, Rock, HHH, Shawn, Bret (co-winner), Flair, Cena, Orton, Lesnar.
    For me Savage is a major omission from that last.

    I wouldn't change the 1992 outcome for Flair.... and by 1993, despite being runner up Savage was being phased down.
    1991 would be the time for Savage (over other rumbles he was scheduled for) to win it..... when you look at the talent pool in it.... take Hogan out who would you have win it? The last 6 to be eliminated were Earthquake, Brian Knobbs, Davey Boy, Rick Martel, Jim neidhart and Haku
    Theres a strong supporting cast of decent midcard guys.... but Savage is the top guy in the mix if Hogan is removed (though Savage didn't compete, if we remember there was a blank entry... which was Savage as Warrior had chased him out of the building according to the storyline).

    I agree that Savage-Warrior had sufficient build up anyway to their WM7 clash.... but my reasoning here was by process of elimination. If Hogan doesn't win... who does?
     
    #23
  24. HeenanGorilla

    HeenanGorilla Championship Contender

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    538
    Likes Received:
    169
    That's fair. I too hated Hogan winning twice in a row. I would have had Mr. Perfect win in 1990. This would also have allowed a first-time Hogan win to send the 1991 fans home happy, after the Warrior had been screwed out of the title earlier in the night. But, assuming everything was the same up until the '91 Rumble match....who else could have worked, besides Hogan...?

    Maybe...Undertaker? Yes, it seems to be too early, but given that the Rumble was just a uniquely-styled battle royal at the time, maybe it could have been used to elevate Undertaker after he had just debuted at the previous PPV. After all, the guy went on to win the WWF title at Survivor Series '91. So, he has his debut at Series 90, then wins the Rumble--has another win at Mania (not to get ahead of LODemolition)...it could have worked since the world title shot was not on the line. Taker was cool from the get-go. Yes, a heel--so maybe a Slaughter win followed by a Taker win doesn't sit right with the fans. But I think he was interesting enough to pull it off. Just an idea on the fly though...like I said, good point! I was just curious why you felt those big matches needed to be built up. But, since you were looking at the cards and shows as a whole, it is more understandable. I was looking purely at Rumbles and the matches that followed (Andre/Hogan and Savage/Warrior). Maybe I'll play around with 1991 a bit and see what I can come up with for another option. Good job though!
     
    #24
  25. Goldie

    Goldie Getting Noticed By Management

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    31
    As great as Perfect was I don't think Vince had complete faith in him as the companies lead villain. He was a great IC champ, but his house show bouts with Hogan didn't meet box office expectations .... He was never given a PPV match against Hogan or Warrior. He was soon to job to the abysmal Brutus Beefcake shortly after that Rumble.
    That's why I would keep Hogan as the 1990 winner (well he had to win one didn't he?) But rather than have him win a double by 1991, change the outcome of the 91 Rumble.

    I think this is too early for Taker. He only debuted 2 months earlier ... and in those days new stars generally had a very slow rise to the top. Taker would still be decimating mid card babyfaces (and losing bodybag matches to ultimate warrior) for months after this.

    Slaughter was needed to win the title at Rumble 91, and therefore not participate in the rumble... As he was needed to take the belt off Warrior (weaker than expected draw as champ) and put it back onto Hogan.

    I do kind of like Dibiase for a shot, but by 1991 he had long peaked as a leading villain and was now a midcarder (HE would soon lose back to back PPVs to Virgil!!).

    That's why for me by process of elimination Savage works.
    It would also make Warriors retirement match victory over savage look even more impressive is
     
    #25

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"