Money in The Bank vs Royal Rumble

[JayMiine]

Over the past few years WWE implemented the Money in The Bank match at WrestleMania. And just last month it got its own Pay Per View. Every winner of the match has gone on to be a World Heavyweight or WWE champion(except Kennedy, who lost his briefcase to Edge, who won the title by cashing it in.) It created Superstars in Edge and CM Punk. Kennedy was on his way(arguably) but was cut short due to injuries. Miz is certainly on his way to being a superstar after winning the last MITB at the PPV. It also gave us a memorable moment with RVD vs Cena at One Night Stand in 06, as well as other great shocking moments with the cash-ins. WWE has all the potential in the world with this due to the instantaneous ability to gain a title match of your choosing.

Now onto the Rumble.
Everyone knows the history of the Royal Rumble. When you win the Rumble you enter the class with guys like Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin, The Rock, Bret Hart, Triple H, The Undertaker, John Cena, Randy Orton, and Edge. A true who's who of WWE history. Some of, if not the, top names the business has ever seen. The winner of the Rumble match gains a Main Event match at WrestleMania for whichever championship he chooses. It has created great WrestleMania moments. Even when it wasn't for the title Steve Austin and Bret Hart gave us, arguably, the best WrestleMania match of all time.

My question to you is this:
Which match, TODAY, is more prestigious to win?

Also:
Should the Rumble be reserved for the top guys, or be used to catapult a young superstar(Miz, Kofi, Rhodes, Dibiase, Morrison, Ziggler, Sheamus, Mcintyre etc.) to the top of the business. Or should the likes of Cena, Orton, Edge, Jericho, Triple H, Undertaker continue to win it and give us a classic WrestleMania match? StarPower has always been a key in the MAIN-main event(usually the absolute last match).

Would you like to see more established stars, like Kane win the Money in The Bank match? OR has the MiTB sort of become the young stars rumble?

How would you like to see The Miz, or the next MiTB winner, cash in his title opportunity?


Thoughts.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

Which match, TODAY, is more prestigious to win?

Still, by far Royal Rumble match!!! This match, when it comes around is what everyone is talking about and its not 6, 7 or 8 guys....its 30...the odds of winning are against you...it will take a miracle to win this match...and top class performers have won this match...this is by far more prestigious to win...

I'm not taking anything away from MitB, but I think its their to bring up new stars and a way for them to get to the top..although it would still be good to see some accomplished wrestlers to win..it will remain for guys who are on their way up...

 

[Nomis]

The Royal Rumble is still more prestigious. You outlast 29 other men and watch them all get thrown over the top rope to secure a place at Wrestlemania

Royal Rumble
I think the Royal Rumble is for mostly the top guys. Because, like you said, it creates classics. So, it should be mostly for the Cenas, the Ortons, the Edges, the Jerichos, etc.

Money In The Bank
I think this is for younger guys, like Jack Swagger. He was going nowhere and then he won MitB and now hes one of the top heels on Smackdown. Look at the Miz, he won MitB and now he's Vince's "Go-to guy." Having a veteran win is okay once every like 3 or so MitB matches, but usually a veteran who has been more in the Midcard (Kane, Matt Hardy type guys)

I would like to see Miz cash in anyway, as long as he wins. Hopefully before SummerSlam, because before MitB PPV, we got a hint at an Orton-Miz feud and it seems like a good one

 

[gers09]

Royal Rumble by miles MITB only gives u a title shot when you want it where the rumble gives a title shot and the chance to main event the greatest wrestling ppv of the year

MITB= your getting a push and chance at title

Rumble= you have made it you are a top star

 

[Mark0820]

Rumble is more prestigious because you are guaranteed a spot in the main event at Wrestlemania. The MiTB is what you use to shake things up(see Kane) and keep people guessing. That all said, I think the wrestlers would rather win the Rumble and headline the biggest show of the year.

 

[Bobby B]

Both definitely have their merits, but for different reasons.

The Royal Rumble winners over the past few years are for the big stars. look at the recent winners - Edge, Cena, Triple H, Batista, Rey Mysterio, The Undertaker, Randy Orton - they were already established main event stars (perhaps with the slight execption of Mysterio). The winner gets a main event spot at the biggest event of the year.

MITB winners are for guys who are going to be pushed into the main event. Often used for heels, it gives the winner a guarenteed contract at any time. It's a cheap way to win the title. So in that sense it's the total antethesis of the Rumble.

Ultimately though, they both give you a shot at a World Title...

 

[SpoodBeest]

These two matches work in different ways. The Royal Rumble is a far more prestigious victory when you think about. Winners of the Royal Rumble go on to main event WrestleMania, the dream of a lot of wrestlers. This is why every year we see this 30-man Rumble, there is so much hype to it. We know that when that winner gets his arm raised at the end of the match we know that man will be in one of the main event calibre matches at the biggest show of the year. The only real issue i have with the Rumble these day is we haven't seen someone who hasn't been a world champion in their career win it. Since 2007 when The Undertaker won it has basically been all former world champions winning another shot at the gold and another chance in the Mania main event. The winners after Taker were as follows: John Cena, Randy Orton, and Edge. Now this is all fine and dandy, but in the future I would really appreciate it if someone new and fresh could win this big juggernaut and go onto their first world title main event calibre match.

Now onto Money In The Bank. This match is a great concept, for it gives over upper-midcarders a chance to have a world title shot. Also most of the time it's a easy way to propel these mid-card stars to the main event after the successful cash in they have. Edge became the main event superstar he is because of his initial MITB win, it also gave Rob Van Dam a chance at winning world title gold. CM Punk the second time was a charm for him in furthering his career, and even though it wasn't a popular decision at first having Jack Swagger win this year has really benefited his career to the point where he is main eventing practically every edition of SmackDown. Something we wouldn't even thought would have happened going back over six months ago. It's great for making new main event stars out of very useful upper-midcard performers.

Both have their pros and cons. However if you are asking which concept is more prestigious than it's an easy one for me. The Royal Rumble is as a good of a deal as they get because if you manage to win you get to be in the main event of the biggest ahow of the year: WrestleMania. However that takes nothing away from how important MITB can be a wrestler's career when it comes time to move them up the card.

 

[Boondocks]

They both have great points, a guarateed Main Event match at the grandest stage of them all, or pretty much a guaranteed World Title.

The Royal Rumble is for anybody to be in, it seems, but big time superstars seem to win. John Cena, Orton, Edge, Stone Cold, Batista, and Undertaker have all won this match. It's outlasting 29 superstars to win a Main Event World Title match at Wrestlemania.

Money in the Bank is a match, often with Mid-carders in it, vying in a grueling ladder match, to win a contract for a World Title match at any time. Wrestlers such as Kane, Edge, CM Punk, Miz, RVD, and Kennedy have won it. They all were mid-carders at the time they won this match. It pretty much guarantees whoever cashes in MITB will win a World Title.

In comparison, thay both give you a title match, while MITB is pretty much the World Title already. BUT, The Royal Rumble is more prestigious because there are more superstars involved, and the match you win is much more valueable than the MITB contract.

 

[patriotjay]

The Royal Rumble definetley meens more then MITB.You go on to Wrestlemania for a main event title shot,And I think it meens more to win a world title at Wrestlemania in an actual match as opposed to cashing in on a guy thats just went threw a match and picking up a cheap win.Hey I see nothing wrong with cashing in but its not the same as being in that Wrestlemania main event and beating the champ.

 

[Ferbian]

My question to you is this:
Which match, TODAY, is more prestigious to win?

Royal Rumble is the most prestigious thing to win hands down. There's no argument against that. There's a very easy elimination in that. So to be able to hold out against 29 other opponents (I know very well there's not gonna be 30 opponents against you unless you win at number 1). As opposed to 7 other opponents.

The Royal Rumble has much more of a buzz leading up to it. Therefore there's also more behind it when it comes to what is more prestigious, because with a Royal Rumble victory you get to do the most honorable thing in WWE, main eventing their premiere Pay Per View event, Wrestlemania.

Also:
Should the Rumble be reserved for the top guys, or be used to catapult a young superstar(Miz, Kofi, Rhodes, Dibiase, Morrison, Ziggler, Sheamus, Mcintyre etc.) to the top of the business. Or should the likes of Cena, Orton, Edge, Jericho, Triple H, Undertaker continue to win it and give us a classic WrestleMania match? StarPower has always been a key in the MAIN-main event(usually the absolute last match).

It shouldn't be reserved for the top guys. It should however not be a way to catapult young superstars either. It should be a way for a guy who is solid in between. A guy who could very well carry the world title and actually main event Wrestlemania, but could very well be on the other end as well. A guy like Jack Swagger for example would be a decent choice to win Royal Rumble, Sheamus as well. Both are somewhat established, they're fighting in the main events now and they have a resume of titles and most importantly, a world title under their name. And they are not established like Triple H and John Cena.

However that doesn't mean that it automatically kills off a guy like Chris Jericho who has yet to win one. I think that everybody who is something in the business should be in a position to win at least once. If it makes sense for them to main event Wrestlemania that is.

Would you like to see more established stars, like Kane win the Money in The Bank match? OR has the MiTB sort of become the young stars rumble?

No. Money in the Bank should very well prove to be a stepping stone for the guys that can actually prove to main event in the future, but aren't quite there yet. A guy like Edge who got catapulted thanks to Money in the Bank, he won it twice however because it made sense. The same with CM Punk, however he weren't quite a main event wrestler after his second victory, therefore that made sense as well.

How would you like to see The Miz, or the next MiTB winner, cash in his title opportunity?

Quite frankly I don't care how it's done. I just want to see it done. I think that they might need to build him a little bit, rather than letting him cash it in at his current state. He could very well hang with the top guys, but he's not legitimate enough for it to be believable just yet. WWE has done just fine as of late, with letting him beat down R-Truth, Mark Henry and Sheamus, as well as pinning John Cena now.

 

[koolaidx]

The Royal Rumble is the more prestigious victory. However, MITB has taken the place of the Rumble, which is why more of the top guys have won in the past few years. Before the MITB match, when guys needed to move into the main event they needed to win the Rumble. If you look at guys like HBK, Austin, Benoit, Batista, Yokozuna, and even Ric Flair, none had been WWE Champ until they won the Rumble leading them to the title match at WM. Since the creation of MITB only the next year with Rey Mysterio Jr. was when a Rumble match winner had not previously been the champ. So now the Rumble is for top guys who have been there and done that.

And only 1 MITB didn't win their first World Title from cashing in the MITB briefcase and that's Kane with an astonishing 1 day title run. Edge, Punk both cashed in twice but their first title victories were from cashing in the briefcase.

So under the current format, Rumble is for top guys. MITB is for guys they want to push to the next level. More prestigious is still the Rumble.

 

[Eck]

The Royal Rumble is definitly more prestigios. It is more along the lines of predictible compaired to MitB. You basicly know who will win more then MitB but MitB is to new to really have the prestigie that RR has. Its been around so long that it just builds it up more the Money in the Bank. It basicly has to do with the age of it. But MitB also builds up midcarders to the ME while the Rumble has usually been one by an already established superstar. But obviously the best talent always wins the RR so yea im going with the Royal Rumble

 

[JaDoE05]

I can't decide which I think is the most prestigious today. I see that everyone is picking the Rumble and I figured that would happen. Like I said I can't decide, but if we are sticking with kayfabe, I disagree with some of the reasons given that give the Rumble match the edge.

The most prevalent reason seems to be that the Rumble has 30 participants, but how many times has the #1 - 5 entrant won the Rumble in its history, let alone recently.
As a matter of fact the last ten winners starting with the most recent were entrants 29, 8, 30, 30, 2, 28, 1, 29, 22, and 27. If you come out in the last 5 or so, you might realistically only have to face 5-10 opponents. So if you win, you likely have only outlasted about 5-10 other people. Also with there being 30 entrants, the level of competition is far less even in the rumble match.

Another reason everyone is using is that the Rumble winner is garuanteed(sp.) a title shot at Wrestlemania. Well if we are staying with kayfabe, the Mitb winner could say to any champion that they want their shot in a one on one match to headline WM. I did a little research and since WM21 atleast(I didn't go back any further), only two Rumble winners were in the last main event in that year's Mania. That was WM21 and WM25

I still can't make my mind up really though. On one hand mitb is potentially more exciting of a match, on the other hand you may see more story telling in a rumble. But the mitb turns into its own story once the participants are chosen. On one hand hearing "Royal Rumble" will likely get more of a reaction than hearing "Money in the bank ladder match", on the other hand (with the exception of this past month) Mitb happens on Wrestlemania, the biggest wrestling ppv ever. Still confused. lol Someone help me make up my mind.

 

[billm75]

Here's hoping my response isn't flagged as spam, but I digress.

I have to wonder if, in 5 or 10 years time, we won't be saying that the MITB is prestigious, if it manages to stay on as a main PPV event in that amount of time. Thinking about it, the original 4 big PPV events were Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series and the Royal Rumble, at least that's how I recall it from my youthful days.

When your flagship PPV's are still there after all this time, they're automatically considered the "A" shows and everything in between is just filler to get into people's pockets for more cash.

BUT....I pose a scenario where they replace Survivor Series with another PPV altogther, and for this argument, let's say it's MITB. Think about it before you blast me. MITB elevates 2 mid-carders to the highest point they can reach. It would and really SHOULD be a flagship PPV event. They could still do the survivor series style matches using Main Event guys, but really add that 'wow' factor by throwing in 2 8-man ladder matches for a guaranteed shot at the titles.

If they tweaked it a bit, it could work. They could also simply have on MITB at Wrestlemania and one during Survivor Series, that way there's not two cases/contracts floating around all year at the same time, they wouldn't have to be in such a hurry to have at least one of them cashed in (ala Kane) and they could really build semi-annual storylines around them.

Lots of possibilities, but for now, to stay somewhere near the original topic, I'll say the prestige points go to the Rumble, but MITB has a decent chance of unseating it from it's perch in the years to come.

 

[realdealasshole]

Fact is, regardless of how many people you have to defeat in the rumble, whether it's tossing out just one person or 29, you DON'T win the royal rumble if you're not already a big named star. You just don't. Never have, never will. That's why the Rumble is just head and shoulders above the money in the bank. In fact, the money in the bank just seems to have become completely stale for me. Yeah it puts guys over, but once you've seen the same storyline happen over and over again, it gets to become lame.

 

[VintageWWE]

The Royal Rumble is certainly the more prestigious of the two. Only the best ofthe company have a chance at winning the Rumble. By winning it a wrestler is solidified as a main event wrestler. A Rumble victory guarantees you a main event title match at the grandest stage of them all. Even if the Rumble winner ends up losing the type match it's only a matter of time before he does eventually win the title. In my opinion the Rumble does guarantee a world title run. MITB does guarantee a world title but I would not call it prestigious because of that. Certainly it would mean a lot for a midcarder to win as it is a push to the main event. Ultimately the Rumble guarantees a main event match at Wrestlemania and MITB guarantees a title run. In my opinion a main event match at Wrestlemania is definitley more prestigious.

 

[Tenta]

It's absolutely the Royal Rumble winner, and always will be. This would be more like comparing the Royal Rumble to the King of the Ring; one was meant to set the stage for a Wrestlemania main event, as well as building in a feud where there may not normally be one. The MiTB has really taken the place of the KotR, in elevating the next worthy name into the main event, and building their credibility. The Royal Rumble means as much, if not more, than it did when it started, and has launched so many Wrestlemania Main Events. True, you may not need the win to get into the main event of Wrestlemania, but it surely cements your position as a potential face of the company. The MitB, meanwhile, just elavates a mid card name to championship level.

Has to be the Royal Rumble here

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Both matches are very similar in their outcomes, but I think they should, and are being used in very different ways.

Royal Rumble: This is the one they give to Triple H, John Cena, Batista, Hulk Hogan, Christ Benoit, etc. This is one of the biggest matches of the year, and the winner must go through hell and back, eliminate and outlast 29 superstars for an immediate main event title match at Wrestlemania. It's not a match that mid-carders tend to win. A lot of people are always calling for guys like Morrison, Miz, and Hardy to win the match, but they never do. And I honestly don't want to see that happen just yet. Just because a rising star or a crowd favorite is doing well, does not mean they need to main event the biggest stage in sports entertainment. This is where MITB comes in...

MITB Ladder Match: This is where future main eventers shine. You might be thinking that Edge has won the prize twice, and he's been main event for years. But remember that he had never won a World title before winning this match. He had never main evented Wrestlemania before winning MITB. This is the match where all the future Royal Rumble winners must pass through to get to the top. Right now, Miz is hot and he's only getting better with every passing week. Him winning MITB was pure gold, but if had won the Royal Rumble, the main event match at Mania would have been a bit lackluster without huge starpower. But in a year or two, after Miz has had a few runs as WWE Champion, it's very possible that we could see a Miz vs. Cena, Orton, or Triple H match in the main event of Wrestlemania.

Don't get me wrong, I think mid carders can go through crazy jumps into the main event, but Wrestlemania is just not the place to test run guys like Miz or Morrison. And that's the difference between the Royal Rumble and the Money in the Bank ladder match. Overall I think the Rumble definitely has more prestige to it, but the MITB match does a lot more for building the future of the company.

 

[CyDeez]

I didn't read anyone else' responses due to the fact I am probably saying something similar to most of the posts above me...

I am going with The Royal Rumble as far as prestige goes... While MITB is definetly a catapult into the title and stardom... It is an exciting way to make an impact...

But The Royal Rumble allows, storyline permitting, LOL, the winner to go on to be graced by the GRANDEST stage of them all... Wrestlemania! To MAIN EVENT Wrestlemania and win or at least wrestle for the top prize in the whole wrestling business, in the greatest company that has ever showcased it, IS HUGE!

The world is watching Wrestlemania, gearing up for that shot at the title!! MITB is more unexpected, so less people will be watching it at the time!

I think MITB is a great idea, but, in comparison of the two, Prestige goes to the Rumble!

 

[Decarow]

My only beef with today's Royal Rumble winner is that they don't really get the true main event at WrestleMania. They've lately been just getting an upper card match (people say it's "a main event" but in reality it's not). The last 2 to get a true main event were Batista and Orton. That's because they were fighting HHH (their old mentor in Evolution). In fact, the only people who have gotten the true main event since 2000 are: Rock, Austin, Brock, Benoit, Batista, and Orton. Rock and Austin were back to back, then HHH won and beat Y2J in an uppercard match at 18, then Brock, Benoit, and Batista were back to back to back. Then Mysterio, Taker, and Cena didn't have the main event; Orton did; Edge didn't. The past 3 years, the RR winner did not win the title at WM. There was a streak from 2001 (Austin)- 2007 (Taker) where they would win (7 years) and now they are just not winning.

That's off topic I know. I still think the Royal Rumble is more prestigious. If you win, you put your name in with the likes of Hogan, Austin, HBK, Austin, Rock, HHH, etc.

That's not saying the MITB shouldn't be sought after though. It's still one hell of a prize. Personally, I think it's harder to win. You have to take out 7 guys long enough for you to climb a ladder and unhook the briefcase, which isn't that easy (look at Swagger). However only one guy used his MITB to get an actual 1 on 1 both at fair health match. That man is RVD. Edge ran in after 2 matches, CM Punk cashed in after Batista annihilated Edge, and then after a TLC match, Swagger did it after Edge speared Jericho, Kane did it after a match as well. Not saying there's anything wrong with it, it's smart as hell, but it makes them look weak.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

Most Definetly, the Royal Rumble has the most prestiege. It always has. It is one of the most "look forward to" matches in the WWE. 30 men, and only one will come out on top. That says it all.

But lately I feel that the Royal Rumble has been loosing prestiege. It as if the royal rumble goes like, "If you get injured, and you're scheduled to return sometime in January, than YOU will win this year's Royal Rumble." How many people has that happened to in recent years? John Cena, Undertaker, Edge (etc). Also, if you look closely at the last 4 winners, they have all been top stars! It gets me tired to see these guys win.

I believe that the Royal Rumble should be more of a surprise and used to elevate "future stars". I do not think that top superstars should win the Royal Rumble. The Royal Rumble should go to mainly mid-carder that are future main eventers. For example, if Drew McIntyre entered next years Royal Rumble at lets say....number 21. If he were to stay until the final entrie where it would be...lets say Chris Jericho. Everyone would think Chris Jericho would win because "he hasn't won a rumble yet"---But then what happens?! BAMM! McIntyre eliminates Jericho and he is on his way to Wrestlemania. This win indeed boosts McIntyre's reputation with the feeling that we were all shocked it would happen.

MitB should be reserved for strictly mid-carders to win. This is how it could help elevate their "star power" (it has done wonders for Edge, CM Punk, Swagger etc.).

Now as to how I would like to see superstars cash in their MitB, I don't really care how its done as long as it isnt so predictable. When people watch something they like to be surprised. They don't like to see the same thing over and over and over again. And if there is "surprises" than that gets the viewer (us) more into their product and it keeps us with the suspence and the, "what's gona happen next?!"

 

[Jonnie Walker]

I think the Royal Rumble is more prestigious to win because you are the last man standing after 29 eliminations, and you get to main event Wrestlemania. Money in the bank is more exciting though, because you've got a young star who could cash it in at any time, and when it is cashed in, it's a guaranteed mark out moment. Money in the bank is a way to catapult a young guy, usually a heel, to the Main Event. The Royal Rumble is usually a top star winning it, usually a guy who is a top draw, because seriously, do you think that someone is going to think "Oh, Kofi Kingston is in the Main Event of Wrestlemania, I want to buy this show"? No, they aren't. But someone would mark out if Kofi won Money in the Bank and cashed it in. The Rumble is for top stars, and money in the Bank is for guys who are being pushed to the Main Event, and therefore, the Rumble is more prestigious.

 

[CH David]

This shouldn't even be a question. It's the Royal Rumble hands down. With the Royal Rumble, you are in the Main Event of Wrestlemania. Sure you may not headline because of the brand split, but you are still most likely going to be the Main Event of your specific show. Besides, last year what would you have rather had, the SmackDown Main Event go last since Edge won the Rumble, or Taker vs. HBK? I think they went about it the right way this year. Either way, you are in the Main Event of Wrestlemania! I think that in itself is more prestigious than being able to cash in on Raw or SmackDown.