Has the concept of the Rumble match run its course?

[The Brain]

The thing I don't understand from what I've read here and elsewhere is people complaining about the predictability of the Rumble over the past couple years. I've seen so many people say because of the stipulation there are only a few people that have a realistic chance of winning. Where have you guys been? It has been that way since 1992. To be honest I've never been a big fan of the stipulation for exactly that reason but it most certainly is not a recent problem.

I'm used to the predictability because of the stipulation. What's bothered me more recently is how obviously scripted the Rumble has been even for wrestling. For something that's supposed to be random there sure are a lot of conveniently timed spots. It's wrestling so of course these planned spots have to happen but it could be a little less obvious. It's hard to explain but I think the better Rumbles are the ones where everything at least seems random if that makes sense.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

The Royal Rumble is such an iconic part of the WWE that I definitely don't see it going anywhere, and that's okay. It's a fun match that can help you push a new guy, establish new feuds, and provide some surprises. That being said, it doesn't HAVE to be for a Title shot at WrestleMania every year. I'd like to see the World Championship actually on the line in the Rumble Match next year. It's happened once before and I think it would be cool to see again. They could do a vacant Title angle, or just have the Champion defend the Title in the match. Whatever the case, there are lots of angles that could result from that stipulation. I can picture a scenario where a babyface Champion is forced to defend the Title in the Rumble and has to enter at #1. He outlasts everyone before being cheaply eliminated by a heel in the end to lose his Title and set-up a feud for WrestleMania.

 

[laodaron]

Honestly, why not already have a heated WWEWHC feud for WM already going before the Rumble and have the Rumble winner be a midcard guy going for the US Belt?

 

[MMA Mark]

It just needed to be booked better this year. Bryan being eliminated so early, Ziggler hardly doing anything, Miz/Mizdow's altercation could have been more significant, and started off the match. Why they left Orton out I do not know, he was a viable winner as well.

I REALLY wanted the Wyatt Family to reunite. They should have never broken up in the first place and it pisses me off that they did Harper vs Rowan and Rowan vs Bray in random unannounced free matches. Those are solid PPV matches to build up to.

And the last few years have been pretty bad in terms of winners. Cena, Batista and now Reigns. Cena vs Rock II was so lame and predictable, Batista vs Orton would have been an awful main event and Reigns isn't ready for the spotlight. Ryback should have won instead of Cena and beat Show for the WHC, Bryan should have won this year, he would have an incredible match with Brock. If Bryan could pull off a mid-air transition from an F-5 into the Yes Lock that would be epic.

 

[bioshock]

If WWE is going to continue having pre selected winners up to a few weeks before the Rumble, or pre selected winner everyone knows of 6+ months before the Rumble, then they can drop the event altogether.

It just seems like this whole "Road to WM" has become some prebooked storyline done 5-12 months ahead of time and they don't change their mind even the littlest. Makes it all worthless because WWE becomes its most predictable this time of the year.

 

[Franchize1990]

In short, no the concept of the Rumble match has not run it's course.

It's still one of the more exciting pay per views of the year and it's usually the first real sign that WrestleMania is really just around the corner. More times than not, the Rumble match is where a few seeds for a WrestleMania rivalry (besides the obvious winner vs champion) are planted. It's like the March Madness of wrestling where new guys can make a name for themselves while the winner usually isn't a surprise to the majority. It is a great opportunity to enjoy a bit of nostalgia as we're guaranteed to see an old favorite come out and give the audience a good time before getting eliminated and getting back to business. The "predictability" of a Rumble doesn't matter if it's booked in a decent way. Unfortunately, this year's Rumble had the right winner with some booking decisions that didn't go over too well with the Philly fans (anybody really shocked at that?). Still, the excitement that the Rumble match normally generates because of the fact that the winner is going on to headline WrestleMania is a major reason the concept has, and will continue to stay the same for years to come.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I hope they never discontinue the Royal Rumble. After Wrestlemania, it's my favorite pay-per-view simply because of the spectacle. I love the format; the every-two-minutes business with a new guy appearing, with there being no way to guess who it will be until we see them coming down the aisle.

Plus, I look forward to the surprise entries; watching Diamond Dallas Page enter last week was a complete shocker; I never expected it. My favorite came some 20 years ago, when Bob Backlund showed up with no advance notice, some 15 years after he had first won the WWF championship.

That said, I wouldn't mind having WWE change the reward for winning the Rumble; so much can happen in the three months before Wrestlemania, it seems unwieldy to have the Rumble winner hold the privilege of facing the world champion at the big event. The fact that the champion could lose his title to someone else in those three months makes it strange that the guy who wins the Rumble remains the same, even if that man loses 10 matches in those three months.

I can't remember if the original concept for the Royal Rumble was to grant the winner a title shot. Was it? Or was just the glory of winning enough to make entering worthwhile?

 

[tomthebodz]

I still enjoy the concept despite the last 2 Rumbles being pretty poor. The issue is that 30 men is currently too many. There are far to many no hopers in the match it's jsut pointless.

The only slight change I'd make is when it's down to the final 2 it becomes a 1 on 1 match. It would make winning seem that much more of an achievement in my opinion.

 

[Franchize1990]

I hope they never discontinue the Royal Rumble. After Wrestlemania, it's my favorite pay-per-view simply because of the spectacle. I love the format; the every-two-minutes business with a new guy appearing, with there being no way to guess who it will be until we see them coming down the aisle.

Plus, I look forward to the surprise entries; watching Diamond Dallas Page enter last week was a complete shocker; I never expected it. My favorite came some 20 years ago, when Bob Backlund showed up with no advance notice, some 15 years after he had first won the WWF championship.

That said, I wouldn't mind having WWE change the reward for winning the Rumble; so much can happen in the three months before Wrestlemania, it seems unwieldy to have the Rumble winner hold the privilege of facing the world champion at the big event. The fact that the champion could lose his title to someone else in those three months makes it strange that the guy who wins the Rumble remains the same, even if that man loses 10 matches in those three months.

I can't remember if the original concept for the Royal Rumble was to grant the winner a title shot. Was it? Or was just the glory of winning enough to make entering worthwhile?

I believe after Flair won the WWE Championship in the Rumble 92, they introduced the stipulation that the winner of the Rumble match would move on to a title match at Mania.