40 Man Royal Rumble

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

Back in 2011, for the first time ever, we had a 40 man Royal Rumble. In my personal view, this is one of the best Rumbles ever for its great structure and huge surprise factor. Granted, it's not 1992 good, but it was quite ambitious for WWE to do, and it payed off big time.

Since then, the rumbles have returned to 30-men, and whether this is for the best or the worst is entirely opinion based. However, with the recent influx of NXT talent such as The Shield, The Wyatt Family and Curtis Axel the active roster currently stands at 58 (basically this list minus Regal, Riley, Dallas, Booker, Hornswoggle, The Rock, HHH, Taker and Tatsu). Therefore, with the addition of returning legends and other wrestlers being promoted from NXT, WWE are more than capable of holding a 40 man Rumble along with 4 other matches on the card.

The question I'd like to give to you is should the 40 Man Royal Rumble return for the 2014 Rumble? Should it return in the future? Or should it be a one-off?

In my personal opinion, I think that the 40-man Royal Rumble should return some day, but I'm not sure as to whether it should this year. The 2011 rumble worked nicely due to the faction wars between the Corre and the New Nexus (although it didn't succeed solely because of this), although it did make the Corre look a little weak in comparison to the Nexus due to the haste of Gabriel and Slater's eliminations. I'm not sure if it can create the same great structure as before, but it could still work out alright if played right. On the other hand, I've always loved the Royal Rumble match and 40-men duking it out through the match is more fun than 30 imo and it allows more guys to take part in it. So I'm sort of split on it.

 

[blindman]

Yes I liked it and now they have enough guys to where they don't need to use 3 spots for the announcers. The extra 10 just make it a bit more fun imo.

Don't see WWE shrinking its roster size down, it will usually be 50 to 60 guys so why not have a 40 man rumble to change it up sometime.

 

[EireLemon]

I would personally love to see it, they should have a thing were every fifth year it's a 40 man royal rumble, would shake things up a bit!

 

[BreakItDown]

I am all for having a 40 man rumble in 2014. There are many things that could be done with this. For instance, the members of the Shield could turn on each other and embark on singles careers. We could see the development of different story lines as well as see heels turn face and vice versa. Also, if done well, we would have a chance to see some superstars we normally don't see on TV showcase their talent. A strong showing even in a losing effort could do wonders for someone's career. Just think - we all still remember Kofi Kingston's handstand to avoid elimination. I'll add one thought to this - and that's that not only would I like to see a 40 man royal rumble, I'd like the winner to be the first entrant. I'm not sure who I would pick for this, but I think something creative could be done with it.

 

[Loveless]

Personally I've always felt that the entire male roster should be involved. Logistically it's difficult but the Rumble should be a chance for everyone and it would give it much needed credibility after the past few years.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

WWE don't have enough big name talent to fill the 30-man Rumble's these days. It'd be a terrible idea to start having 40-man matches each year.

Anyway, the 2001 Rumble would've been a good opprotunity for WWE to break all their previous Rumble records. Longest time spent in the match, most eliminations, etc. Which would've made it feel very special. Instead it was a fairly average match that was largely forgettable.

 

[Mr. Book This Section]

Totaly. It would be really fun too. I think that with NXT on the rise it would be good as it could show some of those stars like Bo Dallas last year.

 

[The Butcher]

It's too early to say what they should do considering that the Rumble is over 5 months away. Plus, just because WWE has a roster that could sustain a 40-man Rumble doesn't mean that they should have one. I'm not opposed to them doing one this year or any year, but I'd like for there to be better justification for it other than "well, they got a bunch of rookies and jobbers on the roster."

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

I didn't like the 40 man Rumble. It's the same old saying that too much of a good thing is bad enough (or something like that) and that's what we got in The 40 man Rumble. The 30 participants is perfect because it allows booking to setup a beginning, middle, and end plus the length is normally just right to keep your attention span.

The 40 Man Rumble I felt was just too long. It had a beginning, a really long middle, that kind of lead to an abrupt end. Looking back what value did it add to have 40 participants? The Nexus segment could still be in the 30 man rumble, Del Rio could still have had a late entry number and win it all, Santino could have still been the surprise last man eliminated.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

There's no point in adding a bunch of midcarders and jobbers if WWE is going to continue to have only established main eventers win the match.

If WWE hast to first start giving guys like "Kofi Kingston" and "Titus O'Neil" legitimate shots at winning the match before talking about adding 10 more men to the match. And I'm not silly, I know WWE can't have Titus O'Neil main eventing WrestleMania. But if we see Titus O'Neil end up in the Final Four with absolutely no "build-up", no rocket-ship to the main event beforehand, then the audience can begin to be conditioned to think that ANYONE can make it in the Royal Rumble.

Instead, we have the situation where not only are all the winners established main eventers, but everyone who actually has a great performance in the match is already receiving a push. Khali eliminates 7 men after already being built up as a huge threat. Ryback ends up in the Final 2 after a big main event push with a couple of WWE title matches. Sheamus is the one with the longest time in the match after a solid main event run of his own.

Why not have Evan Bourne eliminate 6 people in the match? Have Brodus Clay eliminate a big name like Sheamus. Have Kofi Kingston last all the way until the final three. Do different ways to push the undercarders every year and condition the audience to think everyone has an opportunity to shine in the Rumble match. THEN, you can make it a 40-man match when all 40 men matter.

 

[lil bitch Kid]

This a really good point. In the past I've always watched RR waiting to see which mid-card guy was going to get the push from the match. In the earlier days, I remember Shane Douglas getting a ton of mentions for how long he lasted. Remember Maven eliminating the Taker? There used to be, every year, a mid card guy that would either last a long time and get tons of talk, or a big elimination. Now, the problem is that the guys that are getting the longest times tend to be guys that are already established, which is a shame. Mid card guys don't need to win the match, they need to a couple each year with a 'moment' of some kind.

I do, however, think that the 40 man rumble every few years would be cool. I'm personally a fan of the nostalgia pop when they pull someone out of moth balls and let them get in. The key is that they don't stay for too long and that there elimination be meaningfull.

 

[thebarber]

adding ten more guys just splits the payoff more for the talent who are involved. It added nothing having 40 guys, if anything having the netrants conme down thick and fast took away from the Rumble. Each year, we are only given a reason to believe in 2-3 guys being realistic chances of winning the Rumble, they should concentrate further on making the Rumble match more of a lucky dip, have their booking arranged in advance so when having the Rumble winner, at the time it is a surprise of some sort. I mean already looking at next year, apart from CM Punk or Daniel Bryan, who is really going to win it? They wont go with a previous winner and they wont go with a mid carder.

 

[HBKistheHOF]

While I didn't have a problem with the 40 Man Rumble in 2011, what was really the point of it or the benefit from it?

It adds 10 more guys to the match & those 10 more guys get a spot on the PPV that they might not had otherwise but, like stated previously, that would probably also just take more time & attention away from the other guys that WWE wants highlighted in the match. It also added something slightly fresh & new to an older concept but I think the Royal Rumble already sustains a certain amount of interest with or without featuring 10 extra WWE Superstars, not to mention the more times WWE has a 40 man rumble the more the original becomes less special because it is already the evolved form of a Battle Royal, sort of like how the MitB Ladder Match is the evolved form of the original Ladder Match. It is already the bigger & better version & adding more guys wouldn't add anything new. People would probably just come to expect a 50 Man Rumble, then a 60 Man Rumble & then WWE would just get stuck in the hole WCW got stuck in towards the end of the companies existence where everything had to be bigger than the next.

So while the ending of the 2011 Rumble was rather weak IMO, it is still a pretty awesome Rumble & the only 40 Man Rumble to date. & while I don't really think adding 10 guys to the Rumble really did much of anything, I see more of a benefit & nostalgia in the long haul in keeping it as the only 40 Man Rumble ever.

 

[LSN80]

I didn't like it myself.

I love the Royal Rumble, it's quite possibly my favorite match type. But call me old-fashioned, call me a traditionalist, but the 30 man Royal Rumble just feels right. I don't care about payoffs for extra talent or surprises or anything of that sort, I enjoy the match in its original format.

Further, it weakens the talent pool even more. With the 30 man Rumble, there's still only a group of 4-5 guys with a realistic shot of winning. The rest are just a mix of filler to be dumped to pad stat totals for eliminations, or to survie 30-40 minutes with some exciting spots. While I enjoy a veteran going on a tear and Kofi Kingston's high-flying theatrics, there comes a time where I want for it to get to the real meat of the match, which is the third part where the field is narrowed to the likely candidates.

An extra ten men only adds to that by 10-20 minutes, or forces them to really rush eliminations. No thanks.

 

[ADLegend21]

the 40 man rumble was great. It provided a few good pops for comebacks and provides more rooms for guys to show up and be a surprise entrant and for more guys to have a good showing. Bo dallas had a good showing in 2013 and got a feud with Barrett and now he's NXT champ which, if the last two guys are any evidence, will be up on the big stage and producing. 40 man rumbles would be amazing if they were to happen again.

 

[Airehk]

I liked the 40 man Royal Rumble. I find the RR is the desert of the PPV's. Sure there's wrestle mania, but it's really just a spectacle of a regular PPV, Summer slam is Wrestlemania-Lite, Survivor Series is great, but becomes forgettable.
Look at the RR, you have every and anyone winning a chance to go to Wrestlemania and establish themselves as a solid part of wrestling history. Then with 40 wrestlers, there is 10 who will make it as an underdog breaking out. The next 10 will likely be the Tyson Kidd's and the Sweet T's of the WWE — no chance. The following 10, the dominant wrestlers for the match arrive and have their "feat's of strength" like 2003 Kane and Batista. The rest are mostly top-card guys and a few mid/upper card guys to wrap it up. Thing is, anyone believable can win, though lately it's been previous champions.

 

[ComeOnVince]

40-Man Rumble would be awesome.

It gives WWE enough space to showcase 25-30 current roster guys, as well as 10-15 surprise entries from NXT, Legends, etc.

The one thing I don't care for is that the Rumble winner is guaranteed a title shot at WrestleMania. I think that the Rumble winner SHOULD be guaranteed a title shot - but not at the granddaddy of them all.

The Rumble winner should provide us with a solid, maybe unexpected, winner that could have a shot at, say, the Elimination Chamber in a 6-way that included the champ. Or maybe it's for #1 Contender.

I know that seems like a random thought, but anymore, we pretty much know who is going to come away from the Rumble a winner. If the RR winner weren't guaranteed a shot at WM, but perhaps at EC, then maybe we could get more variance and unpredictability at RR.

That way, having 40 men makes since. Save plenty of RR time for the guys on the roster, and use the extra spots for specialty entries (comebacks, legends, yada yada). I'd also not defend the WHC and WWE titles that night to give the RR the total spotlight and plenty of time.

That's my two cents.

 

[JCBaggee]

It was a good Rumble, but the only reason it was a 40 Man Rumble was because the feuding Nexus and Corre would have eaten up half of the regular Rumble's entrants, and they wanted to get more people in it.

 

[frogsplash31]

There are only a handful of people that have a legit shot at winning the Rumble every year, why throw ten more guys in that have no shot? I really don't need to see every jobber in the Rumble. If you only put one nxt wrestler in the Rumble, it sets him apart from the rest and makes him stand out.

 

[Mustang Sally]

There are only a handful of people that have a legit shot at winning the Rumble every year, why throw ten more guys in that have no shot? I really don't need to see every jobber in the Rumble.

True, we don't need to see Primo Colon or Alex Riley run out there, but having 40 guys in the event gives us a chance to be surprised by legends, near-legends and other people we haven't seen in a long time.

No, they're not threat to win the Rumble but it's exciting just to get a glimpse of them, stumbling to the ring and making it seem they're ready to make a big splash, only to be harmlessly eliminated a short while later, while not having to extend their aged bodies too much to accomplish it.

I can't remember which Rumble Bob Backlund suddenly appeared on the runway, but he hadn't had any apparent contact with WWE in a long time and it was a complete delight seeing him. It was so unexpected and so much fun that I recall wishing the Rumble had more participants so there could always be a chance of seeing someone like him show up.

It's a perfect vehicle to see old favorites in low-impact appearances.

Go to 40.

 

[MCMG]

I love the Royal Rumble and if it is a 30 or 40 man match I will still enjoy it. The benefits for a 40 man match are obvious, more people from the roster get on the card; more space for legends and shock returns and of course a longer match.

I have no problems with the lesser talent being involved. Royal Rumble's have always had jobbers in them. So what if Alex Riley comes in, sticks around for 3 minutes than gets eliminated by someone.

Indeed, more superstars allows certain wrestlers to have a greater impact. I.e. guys like Kane, Cena, Lesnar, Taker, Ryback, Sheamus, Orton,The Shield are all likely to have 5+ eliminations each. Lets say only 6 of these guys enter than it becomes very difficult to allocate eliminations and make each guy look strong. Having 40 guys allows that.

 

[rge2010]

I am all for a 40 man Rumble. The bigger the better in my opinion!!!

The roster is stacked with talent, and any good rumble should have main eventers, up and comers, legends and jobbers. Everyone from the wrestling talent spectrum.

Look down the roster and you can easily fill 30 spaces and leave some decent talent off the card. Sure there will be 6/7 who will in singles/tag action but we must account for legends as well.

I am hoping 2014 Rumble will see Jake The Snake and Ultimate Warrior.

 

[Skyeborne]

With the size of the roster and not really having any brand extension I think the 40 man royal rumble is needed. It went back to 30 this year and it seemed to be really lackluster to what they could have done with 40.

Let's say The Shield is still around, or we can use The Wyatt Family, three men that are for sure going to team up on the competition, how would you really show the power if they only eliminate 2-3 people because of how few participants there are.

 

[rge2010]

If the Royal Rumble was tomorrow then lets assume the Title matches would be Cena vs Bryan and Del Rio vs RVD. You would probably have a Tag Match as well but usually these participants are in the Rumble anyway...

Main - Orton, Show, Kane, Ziggler, Punk, Sheamus, Henry, Ryback, = 8
Mid - Christian, Rhodes, Sandow, Miz, Langston, Axel, Fandango, Cara, Barrett, = 9
Obligotary - Khali = 1
Tags - Shield (x3), Wyatts (x3) Prime Time Playas (2), The Real Americans (x2), The Usos (x2) = 12

That is 30 right there. That is leaving the 3MB and Tonnes of Funk off the match. Also, Kofi, Santino and Rey are inactive, as is Jericho who always returns for the Rumble.

Others like Ryder, Riley, Dibiase, Truth, Gabriel, Otunga also missing as are up and comers from NXT.

And where do the 2/3 legends fit in?!!!

 

[MINISTRYrising]

The Royal Rumble is without a doubt my most see PPV of the year. there is nothing else quite like it in wrestling and adding 10 more guys just makes it fell that little bit more fun because with 40 wrestlers in the match WWE can add some of the undercard guys to the match that you never get to see on PPV. Also I always look forward to seeing which Legends WWE have decided to bring back for the rumble. You normally get one or two each year but with the rumble being 40 not 30 WWE have the option of adding a couple more then normal.