Over the Top Battle Royals....

[xoxo French Kiss xoxo]

So Friday on Smackdown we saw a 20-Man over the top Battle Royal to determine a No. 1 Contender to World Heavyweight Champion Randy Orton...

My issue with Over the Top Battle Royals no matter how many superstars or divas they consist of is that every January the WWE puts on the Royal Rumble PPV.

For 24 years now we have seen the WWE Royal Rumble PPV, which consists of almost every WWE Superstar in action in an over the top battle royal for a shot at the WHC or WWE Title at WrestleMania.

I ask why, why does the WWE use Over the Top Battle Royals to determine #1 contenders any time throughout the year. The Royal Rumble is suppose to be special, it helps set up a future main event star, its suppose to set up one of the main events for WrestleMania...

Usually if theres an over the top battle royal to determine a #1 contender its because someone involved in a title level feud has been injured or suspended.

So my question is why does the WWE feel the need to pull out the "Over the Top Battle Royal" card when ever there out of ideas to set up real feuds?

Is it Lazy Booking??
Lack of creative direction?
Is it bad story telling on the WWE's Part?
Do you feel as if the Over the Top Battle Royals should be saved for the Royal Rumble PPV?

 

[TheSammichEater]

I really don't think there's a big comparison between the two. The only thing that is similar is how you get eliminated and the outcome. The point of Battle Royals is to save time by putting everyone in the ring at once, whereas the Royal Rumble adds anticipation with people entering one by one.

Personally, I think the best part about Royal Rumbles is the anticipation of who is going to come out next. Will someone last as long as Rey did? And there is room for people to actually put on a wrestling display rather than a big ole circle jerk in the ring.

With that last comment, I'll say that Battle Royals don't compare because the ring is too busy. There's not enough room for excitement like the Royal Rumble holds

 

[Skairipa Matrix]

i disagree with the original poster i enjoy watching battle royals in wrestling as i find them entertaining and it works good for when the champ gets injured to decide on a new champion or once in awhile to decide who faces the champion next! the royal rumble is much better though because its not as much of a clusterfuck as battle royals are but the best thing about the rumble is waiting to see whos gonna end up entering next and another thing i love in the royal rumble or in battle royals is when a big powerhouse just starts chucking bodys! that is my favorite part of the match without a doubt! but bottom line i have no problem with battle royals being used during the year its better then (insert face name here) vs (instert heel name here) to see who faces the champion as its pretty clear whos gonna win even in triple threat or fatal 4 way #1 contenders matches

 

[Yesiamaduck]

Over The Top Battle Royal =/= Royal Rumble

I don't think people would get near as excited about the royal rumble if it was just a straight up Battle Royal, would you? People would probably proclaim it one of the worst ppvs of the year as opposed to one of the big 4, I love the Royal Rumble match... it's just so well crafted. It has suspense, mystery, sense of occasion and not only do you get to see the majority of the roster you get to see some old favourites to as well as unlike most Battle Royals you'll see some WRESTLING and some nice spots.

Battle Royal is just a chuck em all in and see what happens approach which does have a little bit of suspense but not near as much as the is so much going on. Quite often a Battle Royal will start and 5 people will be gone by the 1 minute mark, it's not nearly as impactful as when someone gets eliminated from the Royal Rumble. The core elements of the 2 matches are very similar, no denying it... the Royal Rumble is a variant on the Battle Royal after all, it's just the Royal Rumble is a far more polished version.

 

[#hamler]

I don't have a single problem with Battle Royals. Battle Royals aren't overdone, they are used maybe 5 times a year which isn't that fucking bad. They're not used because of lazy booking. Battle Royals and The Royal Rumbles are completely different. Sure you have to be eliminated over the top rope but like others have said, the differences outweigh the similarities. Anticipation is often the factor when participating in the Royal Rumble. Mark Henry won a Battle Royal tonight. Had he won the Royal Rumble people would have reacted way different.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Battle Royals aren't overdone. Some think they're boring, and yea, parts of the match are. When you're watching it live, it can be fun though because every side of the crowd is watching something different. So you might hear the other side start to "oooo...ooooo...OOOOOO" and so you look over there. It's fun.

The one on Smackdown was about as well done as you could do the battle royal. Had lots of what I call "mini stories". You had everyone gang up on Henry to begin with. Khali protecting Jinder, Sin Cara writing a book called "101 ways to get thrown to the apron but not the floor", Henry destorying bitches on the floor (my favorite mini story of the match), the 3 on 1 near the end with Barrett turning on Sheamus to try to get him out quick, and a few others I'm sure I'm forgetting.

BTW, I really liked how even though the original finish didn't go as planned, they fixed it. It looked like Henry was supposed to catch the top rope cross body, he didn't. It didn't look bad, I mean, are you gonna be a douche and yell "botch" when the most realistic thing about a 200 pound man flying through the air and hitting another happens? It looked realistic. Then, instead of resetting the spot exactly (which the old Sin Cara probably would have done based on his earlier matches), they did a bunch of other stuff and fixed it.

Great battle royal. This is how they're done. Mini stories and a fun "final X" (like 4, 5, 6, whatever).

Another thing, and the Smackdown one kinda didn't have this, is an epic ending. I was thinking to myself that a great way to book a smaller guy eliminating a big guy in the final 2 is if he knocked him out, then unscrewed the top rope, rolled him over the rope and to the floor. I hope to see it someday.

 

[Syborgg]

In some cases I could see the Battle Royal as lazy booking, but in the case of last night's Smackdown! it served a good purpose. We saw Mark Henry tossing people around left and right. Even when he went under the ropes and hung out outside the ring. He grabbed anyone that was eliminated and tossed him around. This helped build the "dominating monster heel" that they are trying to make Henry out to be. Mark Henry was the main focus of the Battle Royal from start to finish. By midway, I was pretty certain he was going to win. But just to have him win wouldn't have been enough. He eliminated the most guys AND dominated guys outside.

The story of Mark Henry was told through the Battle Royal and it was a great way to show off his power. Add that to the fact that he didn't discriminate between Heel or Face, just to show that it was all about himself. Which is the way it should be when you are a monster heel.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I always enjoy battle royals because they are a great way for guys further down the card to make it onto the show. I am a huge fan of anything with elimination rules as well. They do not need to save it for the Rumble due to it having its own rules. If it is less than 30 guys and they all start the match together, then I am ok with several being done during the year. It is not poor booking, how could it be when guys who have not been on tv in weeks get to make an appearance? It gives the winner a good moment and something to brag about. They are honestly one of the best match types WWE does and we should be seeing more of them rather than less if you ask me.

 

[Daniel]

I don't mind battle royales. Hell, the only thing I don't like about them is that I don't know whether it's "battle royale" or "battle royal". That shit annoys me.

Anyway, the most recent Smackdown featured a very impressive battle royal. It was exciting (an achievement considering I was certain Mark Henry was going to win from the out-set) and it told a story. That's weird for a battle royale.

I don't get the comparison with the Royal Rumble. Wrestlers come in at intervals in the Rumble, while in a battle royal they start with everyone and the numbers go down. The stakes in a Royal Rumble are also a hell of a lot higher. The event is hyped for weeks on end and the prize is a WrestleMania main event. Mark Henry could win a battle royale and no one would really raise an eyebrow. If Mark Henry won the Royal Rumble, shit would get crazy.

 

[killer425]

I don't like them I would just sit at the announcers table I mean there entertaining though it should be everybody get in the ring and once your feet touch the floor your out