Money in the Bank or Royal Rumble?

[MrHashasheen]

The above.

I've been thinking about this for a while now. Both matches grant the winner a shot at an opponent, though one only for Wrestlemania while the other any time for the entire year. Both have their pros, such as the excitement of nostalgia wrestlers returning (Booker T & Big Daddy Diesel), or the daredevil antics (Shelton Benjamin, John Morrison among others). They also have their cons such as who wins Money in the Bank not always being a consistently booked wrestler (Swagger) or having large swaths of slow and generally uneventful moments (Rumble).

So my question to you is this:

If you had to pick to keep only one, would you pick to keep the Royal Rumble or Money in the Bank?

 

[Tattooed Jesus]

Royal Rumble is one of my all time favorite matches and I definitely would hate to see the day that it no longer exists. I like Money in the Bank as well but to me it is losing it's luster and charm with their being 3 of them last year it was a bit of overkill. I say just use the MitB match at Wrestlemania and not give it it's own PPV.

With Royal Rumble the winner chooses his opponent at WM and their is normally a good build to a great match whether the title changes hands or not. With MitB their is rarely much build to when whoever has it cashes in the title and more often times than not it has been a let down to me when it does get cashed in. I think the best were when Edge first used his against John Cena because I completely did not see it coming and it set off a spectacular year long feud between the two. My second favorite was when CM Punk cashed in his first on Edge after the Batista beat down, that was awesome and again totally unexpected. CM Punk cashing in on Jeff Hardy was pretty awesome as well, but then Swaggers, Miz, and Kane I all expected and didn't think they played out well at all but that could just be me. I enjoy the unpredictability of the Royal Rumble I guess because you really never know what to expect there.

 

[Kofi/ZigglerClassic]

To be honest, the Money in the bank match is far more exciting. Last years's Smackdown MITB on the MITB pay per view blew the RR match far away. But this is how I would do it. Royal Rumble would be the beginning of the Road to Wrestlemania and Money In The Bank pay per view would be the start to the Road to Summerslam.

Royal Rumble held in January.
Money in the Bank held in June and no pay per view in July.


The winners of the Money in the Bank matches on the pay per view receive title shots at Summerslam. RR same as always.

My vote: keep both but utilize them better.

 

[DeathClutch]

To be honest, the Money in the bank match is far more exciting. Last years's Smackdown MITB on the MITB pay per view blew the RR match far away. But this is how I would do it. Royal Rumble would be the beginning of the Road to Wrestlemania and Money In The Bank pay per view would be the start to the Road to Summerslam.

Royal Rumble held in January.
Money in the Bank held in June and no pay per view in July.


The winners of the Money in the Bank matches on the pay per view receive title shots at Summerslam. RR same as always.

My vote: keep both but utilize them better.

^
What this guy said, minus the missing July PPV.

WWE voiced their opinions on making Summer Slam the summer equivelent to WrestleMania so using that logic then you need a PPV to crown a number one contender for the Summer Slam show, which brings us to Money In The Bank.

To keep things fresh, have the normal RAW MITB & Smackdown MITB with the winners facing their respective brands World champion. And "allow" the rumble winner to face which champion he deems fit.

And keep the Wrestlemania MITB with that winner having a year to cash in so their keeping their concept for MITB and eliment of surprise but they're also making the championship matches at summerslam seem credible.

 

[GameOver]

Thats what King Of The Ring was for b4 they axed it.
Royal Rumble booked the contender for Mania
KOR booked the contender for SummerSlam
Survivor Series was open for anyone
then Survivor Series or Armageddon set the contender for Rumble.

btw they are gonna go back to multiple PPV's per month by next year mark my words so the idea of ever retaining the big 4 as the main PPV's is out the window

 

[Decarow]

The MITB is more exciting, yes, but I prefer the Royal Rumble. It's an All Star match. Some years you have NO idea who is going to win (like this year). MITB is usually pretty predictable, especially as seeing we've seen 6-10 stars per match, which are usually the highest mid carders and about 1 or 2 never-will-be-anythings just to fill a spot. Honestly, who could have predicted it would come down to Santino and Del Rio??

And for the most part, whoever has been last eliminated gets a pretty high spot at Mania too. Last year, the final four were Edge, Cena, Batista, and Jericho. And ALL FOUR of them "main evented" Mania that year.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I'd choose the Royal Rumble over the MITB match.

This is because anyone can utilize a Royal Rumble win. Over the years we have seen main event faces as well as main event heels win the event. At other times it has served as a vehicle to elevate both midcard heels as well as midcard faces to main event status. The MITB match and the concept, thus far, has only helped in elevating midcard heels to main event status and very frankly I cannot see it working in any other manner.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

The Royal Rumble, no doubt about it.

First, the Royal Rumble has been around since the 80's. MitB has only been around since 2005. So obviously, the Royal Rumble has had a bigger - better - more intriguing history than the MitB match has ever achieved. Royal Rumble is the road to Wrestlemania. And what better way to kick off this 'Road to Wrestlemania' than by having one massive 30 40-Men Royal Rumble match?

Secondly, the thing about the Royal Rumble match is that it has so many people involved in it, that it's very much a great accomplishment for one guy to just stand-out of the crowd and get some massive heat or pop from the crowd. By standing out in such a match, it only gives them that much more of a crowd reaction in order to get over. Furthermore, being in a match with so many people equates to the possibility of their being able to be a number of feuds being generated as a result of encounters that superstars may or may not have.

But the most important reason of all for why I would pick the Royal Rumble... is because just the idea of seeing one man defy all odds; pulling out an upset; and get the win - for one guy to do all that, it says alot in terms of credibility. Having a Royal Rumble victory is one of the biggest accomplishments one could hope for in the WWE. It's pretty much the deciding factor that elevates both your credibility, as well as yourself to the main-event status (if not already there).

Sure, the Royal Rumble may get a bit slow at different points and sure MitB does have more of them fancy high-flying action, but the Royal Rumble can do more for superstars, then the MitB could ever hope to achieve. MitB only allows for one mid-carder to get over - and even then, it's not a safe bet he will stay at the top. But Royal Rumble, that allows for numerous feuds as well as numerous stand-outs. Not to mention, the winner - which 70% of the time, ends up winning the big one at Wrestlemania.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

MiTB is just another ladder match as far as i'm concerned. There's nothing particularly unique about it except the prize being the 1 year guaranteed title shot and the number of wrestler's involved. Having started watching wrestling at the turn of the centruy, the significance of the ladder match for me, was watered down significantly thanks to the Dudleyz/Hardyz/E+C fued that lasted 2 years. So i'm not all that bothered with watching 6-8 guys take turns doing spots.

Whereas the Rumble is unique. It features about 75% of the entire roster, the order of entry is totally random (from the fan's perspective anyway), it's a guaranteed 45 minutes long (even longer now) and it also gives you further insight into some of the other fueds that may well occur at WM.

What does MiTB give you? A 20 minute spot fest and then you know 1 out of 6-8 guys is going to go on and do something, and the others probably won't do anything for a while afterward.

Plus you only get one Royal Rumble match a year. You get at least 3 MiTB matches now (Assuming they're going to keep the PPV theme), plus additional ladder matches and even TLC matches, which are more or less just ladder matches anyway with the extra weapons easily at wrestler's disposal.

So even if they scrapped MiTB, you'd still get TLC matches and the occassional straight ladder match during the year anyway, whereas there's only one RR, so Rumble all the way.