How About A TNA Royal Rumble-esque Battle Royal Pay-Per-View?

[scottyshowman82]

I know I know... Imagine if TNA came out with a pay per view revolving around a battle royal where the winner got a shot at the champion at Bound For Glory...
you can hear some people already saying, another WWE Rip Off what's next?

But hey out of all the things someone should copy from WWE the Royal Rumble or Battle Royal concept pay per view isn't a bad thing. Gosh battle royals and wrestling just go hand in hand. And think of the amazing performances guys like AJ Styles and Daniels could do with their stamina. Think of the eliminations monsters like Abyss and Samoa Joe could pull off. I know they have the Bound For Glory Tournment which I love. But as a TNA fan and consumer I would definately not mind them having their own spin on the Royal Rumble much like WCW had with the 60 man battle royal or some incarnation of the exciting melee of a match sometime in the calender year.

Thoughts?

 

[It's Damn Real!]

TNA has already had multiple versions of their own incarnations of a Battle Royal, and none were memorable or very good. In fact, their infamous Reverse Battle Royal (yes, reverse, as in you have to throw opponents into the ring to be eligible to win) was one of the worst ideas they've come up with since their inception.

They also tried their own "Money in the Bank"-themed gimmick with the Feast or Fired matches that gave the winners shots at the respective titles in the company (with one competitor getting fired in the process). It also was too convoluted and confusing to really hold weight long-term or provide the company with an annual PPV gimmick that people would care about.

Sorry, but you alluding to the fact that people will compare this to the structure WWE has been using for years does not change the fact that it's a warranted criticism. It is quite literally a carbon copy of WWE's model, and is of little use to TNA IMO.

 

[OutsiderDX]

Sometimes you can't improve on perfection. The Royal Rumble is perfect. TNA and every other organization should just give credit where credit is due, and just steal the idea. Don't change it, don't try to be cute, just run a 30 man Rumble.

They have too much ego to do it though. But that should not get in the way of bettering your product and your profit.

Simply go on tv and say... "Yes, it's the WWE's idea, and it's a damn good one. So we are going to do the same thing."

 

[Uncle Sam]

Quite a lot of "TNA should copy [WWE concept]" threads lately, huh?

In fact, their infamous Reverse Battle Royal (yes, reverse, as in you have to throw opponents into the ring to be eligible to win) was one of the worst ideas they've come up with since their inception.

Actually, the rules were that one had to climb into the ring to be eligible for, well, a regular battle royal - i.e. out of twenty competitors, ten would climb in quick enough to be eligible to start throwing each other out. Cue people fighting each other, trying to stop them jumping over the top rope into the ring. Well, you could have been talking about another reverse battle royal, though I bloody hope not. Was not a particularly good idea; did not work out particularly well.

I've always felt that the King of the Mountain match was about as dumb. The "OK, you hang the belt up rather than unhooking it" idea almost works if you don't think about it too hard, but the idea that one can pin a competitor to put them into a penalty box just makes it into a total clusterfuck.

Does TNA even have the roster depth to pull off a Royal Rumble? I'm taking the suggestion pretty literally, but do they have, say, thirty wrestlers with enough left over to have two or three other matches?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I think IDR pretty much said everything that can be said about it. TNA already has and continues to catch tons of warranted criticism for their numerous attemps to copy WWE in various respects such as creating gimmick matches in which the general theme was obviously inspired by WWE or using former WWE stars to build their company around or what have you.

Over the past several months, TNA has veered off of that path and, as a result, are currently producing a much better overall product than they've had in years. Another blatant "rip off" of WWE would just be like taking a big step backwards for them.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

How about they don't.

The Royal Rumble is a great concept which over the years has now become one of the biggest matches to win in WWE because the winner goes to the main event of the biggest event of the year and gets a chance at winning the WWE Title.

It may not be a Battle Royal but TNA has their own version of this called the BFG series they did last year. I actually liked the idea of the BFG series so why not keep doing that? I think that would be an excellent way to go and I thought the concept was well thought out and actually worked.

Why do the Royal Rumble when they can just do the BFG Series?

They have already had their own version of Royal Rumbles in the past that were pretty much the same thing as what the Royal Rumble is, except the last 2 men standing have a regular 1 on 1 match, that's how Ken Shamrock won the NWA title on the first episode of TNA. I wasn't against this idea but they are doing fine not doing it now. I don't see any reason to steal the Royal Rumble idea as its not gonna do TNA any good.

 

[BigDaddyKewl]

Why not try it out and rename it? its not like its going to hurt buy rates which are already almost non existant. Just rename it and have the winner get a shot at one of the major ppv. I would rather see a Rumble match than another long pointless tournament.

 

[Skairipa Matrix]

while its not a bad idea i actullay hope we see the bound for glory series return i really enjoyed that and it made james storm & bobby roode into main event stars we all know they can be but id say no to doing a rumble type event in tna they have the BFG series fans liked that last year and it worked stick with what works

 

[Lowdown]

Does TNA even have the roster depth to pull off a Royal Rumble? I'm taking the suggestion pretty literally, but do they have, say, thirty wrestlers with enough left over to have two or three other matches?

I don't know if they have a roster stacked enough for a thirty or forty man battle royal. Truthfully, in the past WWE brought in wrestlers who were on the roster for very brief stints. I suppose TNA could bring in former talent, similar to how they do the qualifying matches leading up to Destination X for the X division. For the time being though, I don't think it would be wise to do a Royal Rumble themed PPV.

 

[thesubverse]

They've done Royal Rumble style matches before, with the Gauntlet for the Gold. They could easily make a pay per view out of that. I'm surprised they haven't used that match more often.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! Do not copy another WWE thing dont revamp it or change it around just do the BFG series you did last year and dont copy the wwe the tna has done so well lately of doing their own thing they dont need to screw it up now.

 

[Clem]

I don't think they could steal the Rumble idea outright, but they could have a Gauntlet of some kind. Include the whole roster, have everyone come out eventually (just like the Rumble), only have them eliminated one at a time.

People can win the Rumble by fluke, but a Gauntlet would take skill. Whoever won would absolutely deserve it.

 

[TheEraOfAwesomeIsHere126]

I think they should keep the bound for glory series but turn it into just an all in one night tournament with the winner getting the title shot at bound for glory and not just straight out copy wwe

 

[prush80]

One of very few times I have watched TNA was the reverse battle royal (maybe this is part of why I am not a fan, ideas like this that I have seen) they show a guy standing there, why wouldn't he just jump in the ring, there is no one around him, terrible idea!!!

 

[GameOver]

How about just using BattleBowl lethal Lottery style from Starrcade 1991-1992, obviously there answer to The Royal Rumble 20 guys get drawn together in 10 random tag matches, the winning teams of each match advance to the BattleBowl

BattleBowl 2 rings side by side, 20 guys get split into 2 rings have a battle royal in each ring until there's 1 in each ring then those 2 go at it.

can only get eliminated by being thrown over the top and to the floor, if you get thrown into the other ring you aren't eliminated until the final 2.

Mind you WCW had alot more diversity/big name stars during those years.

As for copying the WWe well technicall WWE most likely didn't come up with the concept anyway, like alot of other things has been said they originated which they didn't, jsut took someone's else's concept and made it better or repackaged it. WrestleMania for example, Starrcade 1 was in 1983 2 yrs b4 WrestleMania 1 it just was house attendance only not televised on national/global TV.

Royal Rumble is still just a Battle Royal with staggered entrances instead of everyone at once.

 

[GameOver]

I don't think they could steal the Rumble idea outright, but they could have a Gauntlet of some kind. Include the whole roster, have everyone come out eventually (just like the Rumble), only have them eliminated one at a time.

People can win the Rumble by fluke, but a Gauntlet would take skill. Whoever won would absolutely deserve it.

Rumble winners have never been by fluke lol
it was always planned

and you saying the several people that have wrestled for an hour didn't deserve to win a match against 29-39 other guys?

Gauntlets are too slow, BOOORING!!!! and if you had the whole roster involved, there's no chance in hell guy at number 1-5 could every concievably survive 2+hrs of wrestling 10min matches one after another, unless they did the ******ed practice of hinting that moves are more devastating and quicker in a Gauntlet/tournament then any other time and thus someone can win a match in under a minute.

 

[crazyeddie42]

How about 6 x 5 person Battle Royals......the winner of each goes on to a final Battle Royal to get the title shot?

 

[ABMorales787]

UFFF!! I would not even touch on that idea. Vince Russo has had field day making concepts to match the damn Royal Rumble. There's a good reason that Reverse Battle Royal has won 2 Worst Match awards. And it doesn't have 60 men. There's also the original TNA main event-style Royal. Gauntlet For The Gold. The first was a regular Rumble match where Toby Keith suplexed Jeff Jarrett thanks to Scott Hall and Ken Shamrock won. Since then, the match has gone from over-the-top rope eliminations and the last by pinfall, to a literal Gauntlet match. There's also the 8 Card Stud which had 6 qualifiers and 2 wildcards with all matches in one night. It was closer to the King Of The Ring, but the idea was to push a guy into Lockdown. TNA's second biggest PPV. There was also 4 Ways to Glory which was just a 4 Way match that headlined every No Surrender PPV from '07 to '09.

If you ask me, they should stick to the Bound For Glory series. It's unique if anything, and it gives some pretty in-depth pushes. I mean, look what it did to James Storm and Bobby Roode.

 

[The Bearded One]

There's also the 8 Card Stud which had 6 qualifiers and 2 wildcards with all matches in one night. It was closer to the King Of The Ring, but the idea was to push a guy into Lockdown. TNA's second biggest PPV. There was also 4 Ways to Glory which was just a 4 Way match that headlined every No Surrender PPV from '07 to '09.

If there was anything that I would say TNA would need to do to bring back would be the 8 Card Stud tournament at "Against All Odds" with the winner getting the title shot at "Lockdown." It follows the same basic idea of the Royal Rumble where the winner gets a title shot a couple of months later, but it's different enough for TNA to make it it's own. They could do it just the same as the original one. I think winning a one night tournament makes a wrestler look really strong and really builds the wrestler up as a credible threat to anyone on the roster. Plus, the title match would happen at "Lockdown" instead of "Bound for Glory," which I think is a much safer option. Sure, "Lockdown" is one of TNA's biggest shows of the year, but if the wrestler who wins the tournament doesn't live up to the companies expectations they could just use the Lethal Lockdown match as the main attraction.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

The Royal Rumble is a pretty simple concept, and anything they do to try to make it "different" will ultimately fail. I'm referring to IDR's note about the Reverse Battle Royal.

Which is why I don't think a traditional Battle Royal, as a PPV, would work. It would just be a carbon copy of the Royal Rumble, and blatantly copying the WWE isn't what TNA needs to do right now. Sure, battle royals would work on Impact, but not as a PPV.

 

[Twocenter]

I think TNA should bring an original concept which has never been done before. That will be something good to watch. They've been copying some of the other promotions' concept like Lethal Lockdown. It is a version of War Games. Original concept makes us watch the match. Like WWE brought elimination chamber matches which got great responses. TNA should not make a WWE like PPV. Why? Because it will fail horribly like that worst worked match of the year TNA reverse battle royale.

 

[blockanWo]

Quite a lot of "TNA should copy [WWE concept]" threads lately, huh?

Ive noticed the same thing. Yet people are always complaining TNA copy them to much... The mind boggles.

 

[LegendKiller_RKO]

After the most recent wwe Royal Rumble it got me thinking... Every year since I can remember, the Royal Rumble has been one of the more entertaining PPVS that a pro wrestling fan can watch. It either establishes a superstar on the rise, or sets up a great fued between 2 great Wrestlemania opponents. So my question is...

Why hasn't TNA rehashed this idea?

I know there's a lot of people who feel TNA should try to be there own company but this concept is pretty solid. Like I said above, it's a great idea to put someone over or establish a fued going into, let's say, Bound for Glory. I would love to see TNA take this and run with it. It would bring in a good amount of PPV buys and is a hell of a lot better (IMO) than that BFG tournament bracket they had going. Your thoughts?