Every January I watch two or three old Royal Rumble matches before the annual pay per view. Over the past few days I watched the matches from 2001 and 2009. For those that dont know, these matches were won by Steve Austin and Randy Orton. As usual the Rumble winners went on to challenge for the title at WrestleMania that year. Something stood out to me in both these matches. In 2001 Austin challenged Rock at mania. In 2009 Orton challenged Triple H. Rock was also in the Rumble in 2001 as was Triple H in 2009. This may seem minor and petty but having guys that lost in the Rumble match go on to defend the title at mania seemed to take a little shine off the winners. Was losing the Rumble such a bad thing for either Rock or Triple H? Both got title matches before mania and went into the main event as champion. Its almost as if they benefited more from losing the Rumble rather than winning it. Personally I would prefer if there were no title changes between the Royal Rumble and WrestleMania. Whoever leaves the Rumble as champion faces the winner of the Rumble match. I think that would make winning the Rumble a better prize and give more of a buzz to the mania title match. Agree? Disagree? Doesnt matter?
No World Title Changes Between The Rumble & Mania
- Thread starter The Brain
- Start date
Only problem with that is there's a PPV between Rumble and WrestleMania and there are times the title doesn't change hands in that time frame...like last year for example....eliminating the possibility of a title change at a PPV would be a huge disservice and the buy rates would suffer.....The point of the rumble is a locked in title match at WrestleMania and that's what the winner gets anything after that is just by fate.
There are ways to book the February ppv without a title match. It happened in 1998 for example. You are right though. The Rumble winner gets that guaranteed match which is a big prize. Like I said, I know it's very petty but when I watched Rock get eliminated from the 2001 Rumble my power of hindsight knew it was of no consequence to him as he would get the mania main event anyway.
The Elimination Chamber pay per view and Chamber matches change everything now. Chamber matches are for the titles (now it's one title), or WWE uses Chamber matches for #1 contender spots at Wrestlemania. In the grand scheme of things, the Chamber matches devalue the prestige of the Rumble winner most of the time, because Elimination Chamber is the last pay per view before Wrestlemania.
It's already been said, but with titles or #1 contender's spots on the line in the Chamber matches, people have to have a reason to believe something will change. Without any chances to believe in a new champion or a new challenger, there's no point in having the Chamber matches in February.
I still believe WWE should move the EC pay per view to another month. For starters, the Chamber matches devalue the prestige of the Rumble, and it's kind of risky to throw your top guys into a brutal and dangerous match before your flagship pay per view.
It's already been said, but with titles or #1 contender's spots on the line in the Chamber matches, people have to have a reason to believe something will change. Without any chances to believe in a new champion or a new challenger, there's no point in having the Chamber matches in February.
I still believe WWE should move the EC pay per view to another month. For starters, the Chamber matches devalue the prestige of the Rumble, and it's kind of risky to throw your top guys into a brutal and dangerous match before your flagship pay per view.
The 2009 Royal Rumble definitely was an odd one. Randy Orton won a Wrestlemania world title shot against Triple H, by last eliminating.... Triple H. We all know who won at Wrestlemania 25 in the end. If the winner of the Rumble became the automatic #1 contender to the WWE World Heavyweight Champion up until Wrestlemania with no more title matches between the Royal Rumble PPV and Wrestlemania, that prevents us from situations similar to the 2009 Royal Rumble again.
That leaves us with a big question. What happens at Elimination Chamber? Shall we have Elimination Chamber matches for the Intercontinental Championship? That will never sell in today's WWE. I wish to see that belt's importance restored as much as the next guy, but we need a chamber match with main event tier wrestlers. They could always use it to determine Taker's next streak victim. We wouldn't have a world title match or #1 contendership determined by the Elimination Chamber anymore. That's a price worth paying for the Royal Rumble to gain a significant amount of its past importance back.
That leaves us with a big question. What happens at Elimination Chamber? Shall we have Elimination Chamber matches for the Intercontinental Championship? That will never sell in today's WWE. I wish to see that belt's importance restored as much as the next guy, but we need a chamber match with main event tier wrestlers. They could always use it to determine Taker's next streak victim. We wouldn't have a world title match or #1 contendership determined by the Elimination Chamber anymore. That's a price worth paying for the Royal Rumble to gain a significant amount of its past importance back.
They could just move the Elimination Chamber PPV to another month, maybe before SummerSlam, with a Elimination Chamber match to determine a no.1 contender for the World title at SummerSlam.
Or, just scrap the entire Elimination Chamber gimmick PPV, and perhaps, move the EC match to being the Main Event of SummerSlam. Would make SummerSlam a PPV to look forward to for the WWE Universe.
Or, just scrap the entire Elimination Chamber gimmick PPV, and perhaps, move the EC match to being the Main Event of SummerSlam. Would make SummerSlam a PPV to look forward to for the WWE Universe.
The Eighties
Forward Thinking Nostalgist
I'm in favour of the guy going into Mania having a strong few months worth as Champion to enhance the title match, so I guess I agree, but circumstances can change an opinion, for instance if Orton beats Cena this Sunday I'll be hoping someone gets the title off him prior to Mania.
a definite tricky situation to say the least! 2009 was a weird situation to say the least! If the winner of the RR is guaranteed a title shot to said champion. But the EC PPV throws monkey wrenches into the mix... They could be fine if no title matches didnt happen at the EC PPV thus guaranteed the RR winner does fact not have any shine taken from him.. The UFC does it,books PPVS without a title fight so im sure the WWE can do it!
Dagger Dias said,use the the EC match to book a match to see who could challenge the streak.. Thats an awesome idea,it is.. Or they could just move the PPV to another month.. They can still keep the EC in FEB,but use it to unify the IC and US Titles!! I still believe in that idea,and it could bring legitimacy to the title once again.... Have the champion defend it against five other superstars,still have the tag titles defended,and divas title defended! Book it that way the champion and the RR winner are guaranteed to face off at WM without any shine being taken away
Dagger Dias said,use the the EC match to book a match to see who could challenge the streak.. Thats an awesome idea,it is.. Or they could just move the PPV to another month.. They can still keep the EC in FEB,but use it to unify the IC and US Titles!! I still believe in that idea,and it could bring legitimacy to the title once again.... Have the champion defend it against five other superstars,still have the tag titles defended,and divas title defended! Book it that way the champion and the RR winner are guaranteed to face off at WM without any shine being taken away
the ideal way for this to run smoother is to have the EC ppv moved to July, and used to create a No 1 contender going into the Number 2 biggest ppv.
The only other thing that then becomes an issue is the 2 and a bit month build up(10-11_)weeks of Raw where the Rumble winner and WWE Champion have to build to their match, which is far too long in the current climate. So the WWE Chanmpionship needs t0 be defended in some way in between the Rumble and Wrestlemania. The champion can change, the Rumble winnner is the one guaranteed a Mania main event, the WWE Champion needs to hold onto the belt to main event Mania.
The only other thing that then becomes an issue is the 2 and a bit month build up(10-11_)weeks of Raw where the Rumble winner and WWE Champion have to build to their match, which is far too long in the current climate. So the WWE Chanmpionship needs t0 be defended in some way in between the Rumble and Wrestlemania. The champion can change, the Rumble winnner is the one guaranteed a Mania main event, the WWE Champion needs to hold onto the belt to main event Mania.
Nate DaMac
Fuck erbody but me
Didn't the same thing happen the year that Edge won the Rumble? He eliminated Jericho yet Jericho was the champion come Wrestlemania.
I'd agree for the most part but not this year. I want to see the World Title get the spotlight and I don't think that will happen if Orton is still champion. But generally speaking, unless you have huge stars working it, it's probably not a great idea to have a 1 month build for your Wrestlemania main event.
I'd agree for the most part but not this year. I want to see the World Title get the spotlight and I don't think that will happen if Orton is still champion. But generally speaking, unless you have huge stars working it, it's probably not a great idea to have a 1 month build for your Wrestlemania main event.
Rock vs Austin was always going to happen at Mania 17. Even back then before we had easy access to the internet and dirt sheets we knew that was going to be the main event.
In all honesty though, Rock should have been booked to beat Angle at Royal Rumble 2001 instead of No Way Out. Speaking of which, the HUGE main event was set for Mania 17 and Austin was booked to lose to Triple H at No Way Out! I remember thinking at the time that Austin could have looked stronger going into the event! Even at its height, WWE had questionable booking...
2009 was simply to further the Orton vs Triple H storyline which had been brewing for a while.
My own conclusion is that the WWE Champion should hold the belt from at least the Rumble to Mania. I dont like a superstar winning the belt at Elimination Chamber and then defending it at Mania against the Rumble winner. It seems rushed and thrown together. I want to see a credible champion and want 8 weeks anticipation and not just 4 weeks.
As for 2014, well I really do not know which route they are going down. Batista and Brock Lesnar are waiting in the wings for the opportunity, and it could be them two but where does this leave Cena and Orton? fAR TOO MANY ROUTES THE e COULD BE GOING DOWN.
In all honesty though, Rock should have been booked to beat Angle at Royal Rumble 2001 instead of No Way Out. Speaking of which, the HUGE main event was set for Mania 17 and Austin was booked to lose to Triple H at No Way Out! I remember thinking at the time that Austin could have looked stronger going into the event! Even at its height, WWE had questionable booking...
2009 was simply to further the Orton vs Triple H storyline which had been brewing for a while.
My own conclusion is that the WWE Champion should hold the belt from at least the Rumble to Mania. I dont like a superstar winning the belt at Elimination Chamber and then defending it at Mania against the Rumble winner. It seems rushed and thrown together. I want to see a credible champion and want 8 weeks anticipation and not just 4 weeks.
As for 2014, well I really do not know which route they are going down. Batista and Brock Lesnar are waiting in the wings for the opportunity, and it could be them two but where does this leave Cena and Orton? fAR TOO MANY ROUTES THE e COULD BE GOING DOWN.
Jack-Hammer
YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!!!
I agree in this particular case. It's only been just slightly less than 5 weeks since Randy Orton unified the WWE & World Heavyweight Championships at TLC. Dropping the championship until, at least WrestleMania, sounds very anti-climatic to me. Vince rushed into unifying the titles in the first place, though I can at least understand where he was coming from even if I don't personally agree with it, so the first run of the first WWE World Heavyweight Champion needs to last longer than 6 or 10 weeks.
I don't think there's much danger in Orton dropping the title until WrestleMania at the very least. They seem to be painting Orton as something of a vulnerable champion who's ego is getting out of control, but is ultimately able to kick it into high gear when the time comes. Since he seems to be on the run from John Cena with Cena getting the best of him last night and running away last Monday, it seems pretty logical that Orton retains at the Rumble. Otherwise, they should've just put the title on Cena or ultimately given Bryan a long run as champion and waited until WrestleMania to unify the straps.
I don't think there's much danger in Orton dropping the title until WrestleMania at the very least. They seem to be painting Orton as something of a vulnerable champion who's ego is getting out of control, but is ultimately able to kick it into high gear when the time comes. Since he seems to be on the run from John Cena with Cena getting the best of him last night and running away last Monday, it seems pretty logical that Orton retains at the Rumble. Otherwise, they should've just put the title on Cena or ultimately given Bryan a long run as champion and waited until WrestleMania to unify the straps.
I think the problem is that since No Way Out became Elimination Chamber, it sets up the idea that the title could and probably will change hands prior to Wrestlemania. This is a ridiculous concept especially if the champion has had it since say Survivor Series as out of the next 3 PPVs prior to 'Mania you have them go through TLC, Rumble & EC. Only one out of the three is likely to be a regular match and the champion has to endure two high profile matches, the Chamber being a harder experience.
What needs to happen is to drop the Chamber concept PPV and make it a regular one where you could do a No Way Out 2007, Tag Team match with champion & challenger on the same team. Have a standard one-on-one to prove the champion is worthy but maybe not with someone who was in the Rumble. Or use the PPV to setup the rest of the card and the champion gets to rest by being on commentary. There's plenty of options to guarantee as setup between champion and challenger post-Rumble, but they just need to drop the Chamber as the February PPV and go for something basic as a warm up to home stretch.
What needs to happen is to drop the Chamber concept PPV and make it a regular one where you could do a No Way Out 2007, Tag Team match with champion & challenger on the same team. Have a standard one-on-one to prove the champion is worthy but maybe not with someone who was in the Rumble. Or use the PPV to setup the rest of the card and the champion gets to rest by being on commentary. There's plenty of options to guarantee as setup between champion and challenger post-Rumble, but they just need to drop the Chamber as the February PPV and go for something basic as a warm up to home stretch.
Hayesamania
Dark Match Jobber
I agree that having the Elimination Chamber PPV definitely does diminish the Royal Rumble winner a good bit, particularly when several of the losers from the 30 man battle royal gets a title shot. I do think, like a couple people before have pointed out, that winning the Rumble would seem a little more prestigious if at least the February PPV consisted of just a regular title match and not the crazy 6 man stipulation.
QFT. WWE shouldn't give us the illusion that a Febuary matters much...honestly I'd rather see a Saturday Night's Main Event.
Elimination Chamber Heavyweight - Bryan, punk, Orton, Batista, Lesnar, Cena, Big Show (take out whoever wins the rumble).
Elimination Chamber IC - Sheamus, Bray, DelRio, Mysterio, Dolph, Henry, Christian, RVD, Jericho, a shield member, the champ, Kane, Miz (take out any 7 of these guys to get to 6 participants.
Now you have an IC Chamber match filled largely with former Heavyweight and/or WWE title holders, plus a couple of up and comers. With that level wrestler feuding for the belt, if the title doesn't regain some prestige then nothing can save it.
Then use some of the 47 hours of programming each week to build other meaningful tag team, low and mid card feuds and have matches outside of the main events hat people care about.
Elimination Chamber IC - Sheamus, Bray, DelRio, Mysterio, Dolph, Henry, Christian, RVD, Jericho, a shield member, the champ, Kane, Miz (take out any 7 of these guys to get to 6 participants.
Now you have an IC Chamber match filled largely with former Heavyweight and/or WWE title holders, plus a couple of up and comers. With that level wrestler feuding for the belt, if the title doesn't regain some prestige then nothing can save it.
Then use some of the 47 hours of programming each week to build other meaningful tag team, low and mid card feuds and have matches outside of the main events hat people care about.
As Noticably F.A.T. pointed out, yes, the same thing happened in 2010 when Edge eliminated Chris Jericho en route to winning the Royal Rumble and then faced Chris Jericho for the title at WrestleMania. Technically, it also happened in 1997, when Bret Hart was eliminated in the Rumble and won the title before WrestleMania...but that was a unique situation given how the Rumble played out (that was the year Hart eliminated Austin but the ref didn't see it and Austin went on to win) and the fact that the WWE Champion at the time (HBK) vacated the title after the Royal Rumble.
Of course, this list also doesn't include two people who didn't win in the Royal Rumble and won the other title before WrestleMania. Both also happened in 2010, when John Cena eliminated Batista and then Edge eliminated John Cena. At Elimination Chamber, John Cena won the WWE title in an EC match, and then Batista immediately beat John Cena for the title(and John Cena won the title back at WrestleMania). So in 2010 alone, three people who were eliminated in the Royal Rumble won a World title before WrestleMania. And, ironically, none of them were in the Main Event at WrestleMania. That honor belonged to Shawn Michaels, who was also eliminated (by Batista) during the Royal Rumble, and The Undertaker.
Overall, honestly, I honestly don't see this as that big of a deal. The point of the Royal Rumble is to reward the winner with a guaranteed spot in the "main event" (which, of course, doesn't always mean the last match, just a title shot) at WrestleMania. It's not supposed to punish those who don't win. They still have the opportunity to earn a title shot, earn the title, and get a big match at WrestleMania. This was especially true when there were two titles, of course. Now that they're unified into one title, I think you have a better case that the champion at the Rumble should stay the champion until WrestleMania. Either way, I don't really see it affecting the winner of the Rumble. They still get to say they won the Royal Rumble forever, which is a big deal. I think using hindsight in pro wrestling can be a dangerous thing.
Of course, this list also doesn't include two people who didn't win in the Royal Rumble and won the other title before WrestleMania. Both also happened in 2010, when John Cena eliminated Batista and then Edge eliminated John Cena. At Elimination Chamber, John Cena won the WWE title in an EC match, and then Batista immediately beat John Cena for the title(and John Cena won the title back at WrestleMania). So in 2010 alone, three people who were eliminated in the Royal Rumble won a World title before WrestleMania. And, ironically, none of them were in the Main Event at WrestleMania. That honor belonged to Shawn Michaels, who was also eliminated (by Batista) during the Royal Rumble, and The Undertaker.
Overall, honestly, I honestly don't see this as that big of a deal. The point of the Royal Rumble is to reward the winner with a guaranteed spot in the "main event" (which, of course, doesn't always mean the last match, just a title shot) at WrestleMania. It's not supposed to punish those who don't win. They still have the opportunity to earn a title shot, earn the title, and get a big match at WrestleMania. This was especially true when there were two titles, of course. Now that they're unified into one title, I think you have a better case that the champion at the Rumble should stay the champion until WrestleMania. Either way, I don't really see it affecting the winner of the Rumble. They still get to say they won the Royal Rumble forever, which is a big deal. I think using hindsight in pro wrestling can be a dangerous thing.
The Boss
'The Boss' Of Pro Wrestling
I've always been against the Rumble winner getting the title shot at WrestleMania. There are just too many factors and restrictions that come with this clause. The main one that bothers me is that it seriously dilutes the fun of the Rumble as only 3 or 4 guys can win since it has to be someone who can main event WrestleMania.
The point made in the OP adds another reason why the Rumble winner shouldn't get a shot at WrestleMania. It's too long of a gap. Too much can happen in between. I think it would be better if the winner got a title match on RAW. This was there is no time for another title change, the Rumble returns to it's glory days when anyone could win and non main eventers could win and get a title shot that they otherwise would never get. This could get give a push to someone who needs a push and maybe even open the door for a surprise title change that no one sees coming. And of course you'll still be able to have the winner finally lead to a match between two big names after a long chase just not at WrestleMania.
While having the Rumble winner get the title shot at WrestleMania helps connect their two biggest PPVs as a whole I think it would be better for all if the stipulation was removed.
The point made in the OP adds another reason why the Rumble winner shouldn't get a shot at WrestleMania. It's too long of a gap. Too much can happen in between. I think it would be better if the winner got a title match on RAW. This was there is no time for another title change, the Rumble returns to it's glory days when anyone could win and non main eventers could win and get a title shot that they otherwise would never get. This could get give a push to someone who needs a push and maybe even open the door for a surprise title change that no one sees coming. And of course you'll still be able to have the winner finally lead to a match between two big names after a long chase just not at WrestleMania.
While having the Rumble winner get the title shot at WrestleMania helps connect their two biggest PPVs as a whole I think it would be better for all if the stipulation was removed.
Charismatic Enigma
Grand Slam Champion
I'm mostly in agreement with the title not changing hands post RR, the problem is WWE for over a decade now really hasn't been good at establishing long term anticipation (Rock/Cena being the exception, but they even screwed that one up by having them team at SS) WWE constantly either blows their wad early by not letting the feud build long enough, or they put two guys together right away and them have them work a program that runs for 6 months until we are bored to death.
If I can play arm chair booker for a second:
This year specifically, I think Bryan absolutely deserves to win the Rumble simply based on how over he is with the crowd. Of course, that would mean he'd be facing either Cena or Orton at WM, two guys who he's already been exhaustively involved with in the past. Because of this I would much prefer to see Punk somehow win the title at EC to set up Punk/Bryan for WM, but this would make no sense with Punk's authority angle because they also don't like Bryan so if they screw Punk at WM, they'd be helping Bryan or vice versa.
So, assuming they go in the direction I'm hoping (with Bryan winning the RR) they've already backed themselves in to a corner, because of not booking far enough in advance.
What I really think will happen: Some dud that shouldn't win, i.e.: Batista, will probably win the RR and go on to have a snooze-fest WM main event with Cena, while the real talents will steal the show on the undercard.
If I can play arm chair booker for a second:
This year specifically, I think Bryan absolutely deserves to win the Rumble simply based on how over he is with the crowd. Of course, that would mean he'd be facing either Cena or Orton at WM, two guys who he's already been exhaustively involved with in the past. Because of this I would much prefer to see Punk somehow win the title at EC to set up Punk/Bryan for WM, but this would make no sense with Punk's authority angle because they also don't like Bryan so if they screw Punk at WM, they'd be helping Bryan or vice versa.
So, assuming they go in the direction I'm hoping (with Bryan winning the RR) they've already backed themselves in to a corner, because of not booking far enough in advance.
What I really think will happen: Some dud that shouldn't win, i.e.: Batista, will probably win the RR and go on to have a snooze-fest WM main event with Cena, while the real talents will steal the show on the undercard.
In 2010, Edge returned, immediately threw out Jericho and eventually won the Rumble Match and a shot to face the champ at WM. The champ was Chris Jericho.
I, like you, really dislike situations like this and you made a good point, I'd much rather be in Jericho, Triple H and Rock's shoes. I believe it devalues the rumble too. How comes the guy I eliminated got a shot at the title before me? They should establish "the winner of the rumble faces whoever is the champ at the end of the night in the main event at WM."
Then they could book something major at EC. Probably an elimination chamber match for the right to face Taker. Have 6 guys come out the next night saying that they want a shot to end the biggest streak in sports entertainment history, much like last year when 4 men came out and wanted to face Taker and it was settled in a Fatal 4 Way match. Or prolly have a EC Match for a mid-card title. It'll bring much needed prestige to the title.
I, like you, really dislike situations like this and you made a good point, I'd much rather be in Jericho, Triple H and Rock's shoes. I believe it devalues the rumble too. How comes the guy I eliminated got a shot at the title before me? They should establish "the winner of the rumble faces whoever is the champ at the end of the night in the main event at WM."
Then they could book something major at EC. Probably an elimination chamber match for the right to face Taker. Have 6 guys come out the next night saying that they want a shot to end the biggest streak in sports entertainment history, much like last year when 4 men came out and wanted to face Taker and it was settled in a Fatal 4 Way match. Or prolly have a EC Match for a mid-card title. It'll bring much needed prestige to the title.