Changing battle royale rules

[GrandSword]

I think the battle royale rules are flawed and should be changed. How many times have we ween someone outside the ring for the duration of the match (going through the ropes instead of over) and making it all the way to the end or winning...

I think a ten count should be introduced to anyone who is outside the ring during the match and be counted out if you don't return...

thoughts?

 

[Y 2 Jake]

No reason at all to change well established rules for one of the most useful gimmicks in wrestling. The battle royal is no longer a main event gimmick. It is, however, still one of the most useful matches that a promotion can feature. TNA aren't aware of this, hence their invention of the reverse battle royal. I'll admit, you idea is a lot better than that. But neither are needed.

 

[Rayne]

I think the battle royale rules are flawed and should be changed. How many times have we ween someone outside the ring for the duration of the match (going through the ropes instead of over) and making it all the way to the end or winning...

I think a ten count should be introduced to anyone who is outside the ring during the match and be counted out if you don't return...

thoughts?

Looks like the gimmick is working absolutely fine.

You're forgetting momentarily that professional wrestling is scripted. It is not intended to pantomime legitimate competition. It's supposed to be an unfair tactic leading to a less-than-legitimate winner. Fans are supposed to be aggrieved that someone who spent the entire match out of the ring could end up winning.

Based on your post, the tactic seems to be working just fine and I see absolutely no reason to change it.

 

[Captain Mike]

I don't see the problem with how the battle royal rules are, I agree with what is said it is rules like that which have made for some great moments over the years. Like Austin winning the 97 rumble etc. I really wish TNA would use the Royal Rumble format or Battle Royal format for a PPV. Wasn't the Gauntlet for the Gold a Battle Royal back on their first broadcast all those years ago or was that more a Gauntlet Match?

 

[Dagger Dias]

I think that is a great idea honestly. When someone goes under or through the ropes rather than over them, then somehow sneaks back in which often leads to then winning the match, it leads to complicated booking and stupid results. It would be more impressive if the guy had to win by outlasting the others in the ring by never exiting it. I think that establishing count outs for someone going under the ropes is a great idea because it makes it more fair for the others and the booking becomes less confusing.

 

[Maddog Lionheart]

I like the idea my damn self. The whole through the ropes thing in battle royals and Royal Rumble matches are starting to become a cliche. It usually is a sign that you're going to be the one that wins. (Unless your Santino. RR 2011) A ten count is pretty damn genius. Nice thread.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Yes, make every character, regardless if they're heel or face, win more matches cleanly. That's what fans like, clarity. Fuck having questions that need to be answered the next week on TV. Fuck having a slimey smarmy little turd of a chickenshit heel.

Fuck all of that, we need more legitimate winners in wrestling because goddamnit, even though it hasn't sold since the 40s, that's what pro wrestling in 2011 needs.

Do you see how bad of an idea that is? It's not like Battle Royals happen all the time. If you use your idea, you take away a booking tool possible in the match. It'd be different if the match was booked often. Like "that piece of shit Heath Slader keeps winning battle royals cheaply" so then the GM books a battle royal with a countout. It's not booked often though. You see a handful per year and it's a storytelling device they use to convey a character's personality.

The most recent use with Mark Henry really wasn't like the other times. Sure he was under the top and on the outside. But he wasn't being cowardly. He was pissed and instead it was like a shark in the water and every guy thrown out got eaten. So then when Mark got back in it was like "you guys are in deep shit now".

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Having some wrestlers step outside of the ring during a battle royal as a means of cheating and/or taking a breather is a time honored and classic means of generating heat for a character. In some instances, it can even add a little element of spice to the match in and of itself. For instance, look at Mark Henry's performance at the battle royal on SmackDown!. The guy looked like an absolute beast decimating those guys on the outside of the ring.

The concept of a battle royal is a simple one, hence is one reason why the match still works. The WWE's switching things around for the Royal Rumble, with two guys starting and another guy coming out 1.5-2 minutes afterward, was also simple but innovative at the same time. It added another element to the match and the fact that they only do it once a year makes it feel special. Sure, we'll see a traditional battle royal every so often in WWE or TNA and they can be fun, but they're simply just not the attraction that they once were.

 

[JGlass]

I agree with the OP in that, logically, the match is broken and there are obvious flaws in it's rules that allow people to take shortcuts to win. Luckily, the is professional wrestling, and for whatever reason people haven't seemed to pick up on this easy street to victory.

As Jake said, it works, and mainstream audiences eat it up. Teddy Long gets two huge pops, and it's either when he's punishing somebody with a match with The Undertaker, or when he announced a 20 man over the top rope Battle Royal. Fans go nuts over the idea of seeing 20 men punching and stomping each other as they sloppily try to toss other 200+ pounders five feet in the air over the top rope and to the mat below. Changing it would risk disrupting its popularity, so why take that gamble?

 

[Tastycles]

I see where you're coming from, but it is symptomatic of one of the problems I think the IWC has. While yes, the way the rules are now allows people to use loopholes in the rules for their advantage, but it is loopholes like this that allow a scripted sport like wrestling have its heels and faces differentiate themselves. If all the loopholes were closed, then the heels would lose their abilities to gain fan reaction, which itself would stop the faces from making an impact by stopping the people the fans hate. If wrestling were real, this would be an excellent suggestion, but it isn't and they need ideas and rules for storyline progression.

 

[Tripleb2k1]

I don't see the problem with how the battle royal rules are, I agree with what is said it is rules like that which have made for some great moments over the years. Like Austin winning the 97 rumble etc. I really wish TNA would use the Royal Rumble format or Battle Royal format for a PPV. Wasn't the Gauntlet for the Gold a Battle Royal back on their first broadcast all those years ago or was that more a Gauntlet Match?

TNA had in the past but called it a Gaunlet Battle Royal

as for rule change...if the 10 count rule was implemented, alot of eliminations could get missed with diverting the referee's attention