This is my first ever thread that ive started on here, besides being a member for gosh knows how long.
I watched the Rumble last night, and saw some posts from the internet from people who didnt really understand why people are pissed off and up in arms. It got me thinking. Why are we so pissed off? After reviewing each winner from past Rumbles, i came to a conclusion. And I think ive worked out why people, either subconsciously or consciously are genuinely pissed off at Roman Reigns winning the 2015 Royal Rumble
In my opinion, the protest is about not giving the fans what they want. Not giving them the hottest star in the main event of wrestlemania. Lets go back in time to look at this.
1997 - stone cold was on fire, crowd was firmly behind him, and made it clear they wanted him to be the next star, he wins the 1998 rumble and goes to wrestlemania.
1998 - stone cold is still the number 1 guy on fire in an amazing feud with the corporation run by Vince McMahon. Vince wins the 99 rumble but everyone knows its a ruse and Austin will be there to face the corporate champion the Rock
1999 - The Rock is on fire all year, he wins the rumble in 2000
2000 - Stone Cold has returned and is in a brilliant storyline with HHH over HHH running him over and putting him out of action for 9 months. He wins the 2001 rumble.
2001 - Triple H has been out all year and is ready to return. His first match back is at the Rumble. He a big star at this point, and his return was excellently played out. His reaction on his Raw Return showed this. He deserved that rumble win in 2002.
2002 - Lesner is the man on fire, he steamrolled everyone only to be punked out by his manager to lose the title, and his quest for revenge begins. He wins the 2003 rumble being the hottest thing in wwe.
2003 - Christ Benoit is being pushed well from Summerslam to the Rumble, and wins it. Its a deserving win for a man who busted his ass for 15 odd years beforehand to get to where he got. He rightfully won the 2004 royal rumble.
2004 - Batista is shit hot. And i mean shit hot. Evolution holding him back made Batista a star. and he rightfully went on to win the rumble in 2005. Cena to his credit was also hot. Not as hot as Batista at the time but either of them winning it would of been right.
2005 - Eddie Guerrero dies suddenly and unexpectedly. Rey gets the 2006 victory, most are happy at the sentimental value of the victory.
2006 - WWE didnt really have many major stars. Taker, HBK, Cena and Batista was available. HHH was injured if i remember correctly. No one was really hot so they went with Taker for the 2007 win. Undertaker is Undertaker. No one will be unhappy if he wins. Ever. There wasnt really much choice. Batista and Cena were the champions. Punk wasnt ready, neither was Orton really. Benoit had lost steam and Edge was going to be in the main event anyway. So it was really between Taker and HBK.
2007 - Cena had been injured and was expected to be out for 6+ months. His surprise return in the 2008 rumble was perfectly done. No one expected him there and the crowd was red hot for him. He deserved the win.
2008 - Legacy were picking up steam and Randy Orton had finally had a breakthrough. He was a very respectful choice to win the 2009 rumble and go on to have a good feud with HHH over the title at Mania.
2009 - Edge was out for most of the year due to injury. Another comeback victory. But again like the 2007 rumble, no one was really standing out or on fire. Edges return worked well and set up the Jerico match. There was no better pick to win the rumble in 2010 really.
2010 - Heres where it started gettin silly. Alberto del rio debuted just 4 months prior to the rumble and he won it. He didnt look particularly strong in the build up, nor did he stand out or get major reactions from the crowd. Instead of putting Punk, Cena or Orton as the winner they went with Del Rio. Going with a wrestler who hasnt won it before and wasnt a major name is fine. But there were others more deserving. John Morrison and Sheamus were 2 names i thought should of won it over Del Rio. It led to (imo) a lackluster feud with Edge and he then moved into a feud with Christian when edge retired, but then faded from the title picture. It did virtually nothing for him winning the rumble.
2011 - from the start of November till January 2nd 2012, strange vignettes were playing on raw. They were intriguing and mysterious. It turned out to be the return of Y2J. Who didnt say a word for weeks. He kept us interested and i believe most people wanted to see him win the 2012 rumble Sheamus won it eventually. Which wasnt that bad of a choice. He was gaining steam but it may of been a little bit too early. With other more viable picks to win it. Punk was probably the best choice overall as he was still the best thing going in the wwe at that time, but he was the wwe champion and would be so for another year.
2012 - The stage was set for a Cena vs Rock rematch at Wrestlemania 29. The rock was winning the belt, and with the current storyline, Cena was probably the right choice, albeit a boring one. But the numbers spoke for themselves. People wanted to see the Rock vs Cena one more time.
2013 - The yes movement had begun. Bryan was on fire. No one had been as over in the run up to a rumble since Batista in 2005. And....he wasnt even in it. Batista who had been away for 4 years returned and won. The fans called bullshit. They didnt want to see Batista vs Orton forced upon them. They wanted to see the hottest thing in wrestling in the main event at wrestlemania.
2014 - Daniel Bryan had been injured for half the year, he returns in early january. Why not hold off his return until the rumble and have him win it like they did with Edge, Cena and HHH? Instead Roman Reigns wins the rumble. A man whos been back a month and has made some pretty lackluster promos and who hasnt really set anyones world on fire. He's lost steam since the shield broke up. So has Ambrose. But Ambrose is likable. Reigns at this point in time with the character they're portraying him as...he just isnt.
From 2003 till 2012, The winner of the Royal Rumble really didn't matter much. There was two world titles. Winning the Rumble didnt guarantee you to be in the main event of wrestlemania. (Thats the last match on the card, the real main event. the one which is meant to be the big draw) So it was no big deal.
Can you imagine what the reaction would of been in 1998 if Austin hadnt of won it? Why is it different now? Bryan is the hottest thing in the WWE. Not the major draw that Cena is, but Bryans hot.
The Rumble has historically been won by who was the most hottest thing going into wrestlemania. Batista wasnt. He may of been if Bryan wasnt as hot as he was. But Bryan was above him. Same as now.
Im a Roman Reigns fan. But im also of the belief that to make a star he needs a slow build. Unless you're a one off like Brock Lesner.
It took Orton 7 odd years to really become a major star in WWE. (Holding the world/wwe title doesnt make you a star)
Cena id say became a huge star in about 2008, so 6 years. He was a big draw yes, but he wasnt at the level he is today back in 2006/2007.
Punk it took 5 years for him to get there.
Those are the 3 biggest stars who were fully active in the wwe in the past 5 years. It took them time to get to where they were. And i believe the Royal Rumble win helped them. When they were established but not winners of the Rumble. It propelled them to the next level.
Del rio was thrust into the winner of the royal rumble hotseat...that turned out well didnt it.
Sheamus has regressed since losing the world heavyweight title after his win.
Those are the two most recent examples of winners of royal rumbles who were pushed too much, too soon. It backfired. And im 100% sure its what will happen with Roman Reigns.
Im a fan of his. I think while he is poor on the mic and a typical big guy the wwe loves. Hes different. His look is different. The way he moves is refreshing. Sadly i think his best role is a heel. He seems lost at the moment.
It says a lot when you need to bring the rock back to counter the boos from the crowd. The WWE knew the crowd would shit all over reigns because they had the rock do that run in, like it would stop everyone booing and suddenly Reigns would be their hero. Its insulting to everyones intelligence.
Why cant Reigns win it next year after a solid year of buildup? Why are they rushing another potential star. They have their man. They have Daniel Bryan. Hes the one the fans want to see. Roman Reigns is now in a spot where he wont be able to win. The next big face of the WWE is possibly going to be booed at Wrestlemania against a guy whos meant to be leaving soon after.
This is only going to damage his career unless he turns heel. But then that puts them right back to square one with Reigns.
So many times of WWE dvds and interviews the same old shit is spouted from WWE upper brass "the fans tell us what they want and we give it to them as best as we can"
The fans wanted CM Punk, they got John Cena and the Rock.
The fans want Daniel Bryan. They instead get Batista and Roman Reigns.
#cancelWWEnetwork
I watched the Rumble last night, and saw some posts from the internet from people who didnt really understand why people are pissed off and up in arms. It got me thinking. Why are we so pissed off? After reviewing each winner from past Rumbles, i came to a conclusion. And I think ive worked out why people, either subconsciously or consciously are genuinely pissed off at Roman Reigns winning the 2015 Royal Rumble
In my opinion, the protest is about not giving the fans what they want. Not giving them the hottest star in the main event of wrestlemania. Lets go back in time to look at this.
1997 - stone cold was on fire, crowd was firmly behind him, and made it clear they wanted him to be the next star, he wins the 1998 rumble and goes to wrestlemania.
1998 - stone cold is still the number 1 guy on fire in an amazing feud with the corporation run by Vince McMahon. Vince wins the 99 rumble but everyone knows its a ruse and Austin will be there to face the corporate champion the Rock
1999 - The Rock is on fire all year, he wins the rumble in 2000
2000 - Stone Cold has returned and is in a brilliant storyline with HHH over HHH running him over and putting him out of action for 9 months. He wins the 2001 rumble.
2001 - Triple H has been out all year and is ready to return. His first match back is at the Rumble. He a big star at this point, and his return was excellently played out. His reaction on his Raw Return showed this. He deserved that rumble win in 2002.
2002 - Lesner is the man on fire, he steamrolled everyone only to be punked out by his manager to lose the title, and his quest for revenge begins. He wins the 2003 rumble being the hottest thing in wwe.
2003 - Christ Benoit is being pushed well from Summerslam to the Rumble, and wins it. Its a deserving win for a man who busted his ass for 15 odd years beforehand to get to where he got. He rightfully won the 2004 royal rumble.
2004 - Batista is shit hot. And i mean shit hot. Evolution holding him back made Batista a star. and he rightfully went on to win the rumble in 2005. Cena to his credit was also hot. Not as hot as Batista at the time but either of them winning it would of been right.
2005 - Eddie Guerrero dies suddenly and unexpectedly. Rey gets the 2006 victory, most are happy at the sentimental value of the victory.
2006 - WWE didnt really have many major stars. Taker, HBK, Cena and Batista was available. HHH was injured if i remember correctly. No one was really hot so they went with Taker for the 2007 win. Undertaker is Undertaker. No one will be unhappy if he wins. Ever. There wasnt really much choice. Batista and Cena were the champions. Punk wasnt ready, neither was Orton really. Benoit had lost steam and Edge was going to be in the main event anyway. So it was really between Taker and HBK.
2007 - Cena had been injured and was expected to be out for 6+ months. His surprise return in the 2008 rumble was perfectly done. No one expected him there and the crowd was red hot for him. He deserved the win.
2008 - Legacy were picking up steam and Randy Orton had finally had a breakthrough. He was a very respectful choice to win the 2009 rumble and go on to have a good feud with HHH over the title at Mania.
2009 - Edge was out for most of the year due to injury. Another comeback victory. But again like the 2007 rumble, no one was really standing out or on fire. Edges return worked well and set up the Jerico match. There was no better pick to win the rumble in 2010 really.
2010 - Heres where it started gettin silly. Alberto del rio debuted just 4 months prior to the rumble and he won it. He didnt look particularly strong in the build up, nor did he stand out or get major reactions from the crowd. Instead of putting Punk, Cena or Orton as the winner they went with Del Rio. Going with a wrestler who hasnt won it before and wasnt a major name is fine. But there were others more deserving. John Morrison and Sheamus were 2 names i thought should of won it over Del Rio. It led to (imo) a lackluster feud with Edge and he then moved into a feud with Christian when edge retired, but then faded from the title picture. It did virtually nothing for him winning the rumble.
2011 - from the start of November till January 2nd 2012, strange vignettes were playing on raw. They were intriguing and mysterious. It turned out to be the return of Y2J. Who didnt say a word for weeks. He kept us interested and i believe most people wanted to see him win the 2012 rumble Sheamus won it eventually. Which wasnt that bad of a choice. He was gaining steam but it may of been a little bit too early. With other more viable picks to win it. Punk was probably the best choice overall as he was still the best thing going in the wwe at that time, but he was the wwe champion and would be so for another year.
2012 - The stage was set for a Cena vs Rock rematch at Wrestlemania 29. The rock was winning the belt, and with the current storyline, Cena was probably the right choice, albeit a boring one. But the numbers spoke for themselves. People wanted to see the Rock vs Cena one more time.
2013 - The yes movement had begun. Bryan was on fire. No one had been as over in the run up to a rumble since Batista in 2005. And....he wasnt even in it. Batista who had been away for 4 years returned and won. The fans called bullshit. They didnt want to see Batista vs Orton forced upon them. They wanted to see the hottest thing in wrestling in the main event at wrestlemania.
2014 - Daniel Bryan had been injured for half the year, he returns in early january. Why not hold off his return until the rumble and have him win it like they did with Edge, Cena and HHH? Instead Roman Reigns wins the rumble. A man whos been back a month and has made some pretty lackluster promos and who hasnt really set anyones world on fire. He's lost steam since the shield broke up. So has Ambrose. But Ambrose is likable. Reigns at this point in time with the character they're portraying him as...he just isnt.
From 2003 till 2012, The winner of the Royal Rumble really didn't matter much. There was two world titles. Winning the Rumble didnt guarantee you to be in the main event of wrestlemania. (Thats the last match on the card, the real main event. the one which is meant to be the big draw) So it was no big deal.
Can you imagine what the reaction would of been in 1998 if Austin hadnt of won it? Why is it different now? Bryan is the hottest thing in the WWE. Not the major draw that Cena is, but Bryans hot.
The Rumble has historically been won by who was the most hottest thing going into wrestlemania. Batista wasnt. He may of been if Bryan wasnt as hot as he was. But Bryan was above him. Same as now.
Im a Roman Reigns fan. But im also of the belief that to make a star he needs a slow build. Unless you're a one off like Brock Lesner.
It took Orton 7 odd years to really become a major star in WWE. (Holding the world/wwe title doesnt make you a star)
Cena id say became a huge star in about 2008, so 6 years. He was a big draw yes, but he wasnt at the level he is today back in 2006/2007.
Punk it took 5 years for him to get there.
Those are the 3 biggest stars who were fully active in the wwe in the past 5 years. It took them time to get to where they were. And i believe the Royal Rumble win helped them. When they were established but not winners of the Rumble. It propelled them to the next level.
Del rio was thrust into the winner of the royal rumble hotseat...that turned out well didnt it.
Sheamus has regressed since losing the world heavyweight title after his win.
Those are the two most recent examples of winners of royal rumbles who were pushed too much, too soon. It backfired. And im 100% sure its what will happen with Roman Reigns.
Im a fan of his. I think while he is poor on the mic and a typical big guy the wwe loves. Hes different. His look is different. The way he moves is refreshing. Sadly i think his best role is a heel. He seems lost at the moment.
It says a lot when you need to bring the rock back to counter the boos from the crowd. The WWE knew the crowd would shit all over reigns because they had the rock do that run in, like it would stop everyone booing and suddenly Reigns would be their hero. Its insulting to everyones intelligence.
Why cant Reigns win it next year after a solid year of buildup? Why are they rushing another potential star. They have their man. They have Daniel Bryan. Hes the one the fans want to see. Roman Reigns is now in a spot where he wont be able to win. The next big face of the WWE is possibly going to be booed at Wrestlemania against a guy whos meant to be leaving soon after.
This is only going to damage his career unless he turns heel. But then that puts them right back to square one with Reigns.
So many times of WWE dvds and interviews the same old shit is spouted from WWE upper brass "the fans tell us what they want and we give it to them as best as we can"
The fans wanted CM Punk, they got John Cena and the Rock.
The fans want Daniel Bryan. They instead get Batista and Roman Reigns.
#cancelWWEnetwork
