Remember When The Royal Rumble Meant Something?

[Mr.Fortuna]

I'm celebrating my first thread to bring to attention what in my opinion has become the fall of THE ROYAL RUMBLE match as we know it.

Basically ever since 2003 the winner of the prestigious match now had a chance to choose which champion he wanted to face. Now I am all for choice but what is the point of winning the match and receiving a title match at Wrestlemania if some person you eliminate from the match will be receiving a title shot for the other world title at WM aswell? The fact that there are two world titles is bad enough but thats another story for another time.

For instance Alberto Del Rio won the the rumble and didnt even main event the show. He was the first match of the night!! Although Edge vs Del Rio was one of the world title matches it was hardly the main event.

The last time a Royal Rumble winners has successfully become a champion at WM was The Undertaker and that was in 2007. Since then there has been four winners and four losers in their world title match. Ever since 07 it almost seems the winner as become secondary and put in the least favourable match.

Unfourtunatly next years Royal Rumble already seems to be going down that same road. Cena vs The Rock will be for the WWE Championship and D Bryan will be cashing in his MITB assumingly against The WH Champion. So where does this leave The Rumble winner? It seems he will be some wrestler who will just be added to 1 of 2 title matches. To be winner The Rumble used to carry so much prestige but now thats non exsistent.

What will this once prestigious event turn into over the years?

I see myself as a tradiionalist as a fan, there are same great points being made here and I am all for evolution as it is a natural process of the buisness. Im learning to except that as a fact.

With that said though I still hate the idea of 2 world champions lol, always have and always will.

 

[The Dragon Saga]

Okay, the Royal Rumble has changed over the years, because much like professional wrestling as a whole, its evolved! Everything in professional wrestling evolves. Crowds evolves, in-ring styles evolve and even events have to evolve which is what has occured to the Royal Rumble match.

Years ago, for one, WWE didn't have such a large roster between two shows. Now they have so many talents when combining both shows that they had to make it a forty person man match, just to point this out before someone enters the thread thinking they're Einstein and pointing it out. It was done for a reason.

Now onto the OP, the Royal Rumble still means something. For one, if Alberto Del Rio had not won the Royal Rumble match then whose to say he would have featured in such a well profiled match at the event? Del Rio could have ended up having to team with Snooki if he hadn't won the Royal Rumbles, instead due to his victory he was handed an oppurtunity to face the World Heavyweight Champion at the event. Not only that, but he has the honor of having Edge's final match. If Del Rio had not won the Royal Rumble, whose to say he'd even be WWE Champion right now?

De Rio winning the RR was his way of making his name known, it was the way in-which people began to take Del Rio seriously as a contendor at least within the WWE. If he hadn't won the Rumble he could be doing something completely different right now, so whose to say it has no meaning anymore when hypotethicaly it could have altered the career of a sole victors career?

And then onto the upcoming one, whose to say Cena vs. The Rock WILL be for the WWE Championship? Cena may have said that's what he wants to happen but the CM Punk promos state the contrast - if its anything to go by, The Rock vs. John Cena may main event WrestleMania but nobody is so say It'll be for the WWE Championship, especially with Punk having McMahon's ear backstage in the WWE.

And even if it was for the WWE Championship, lets take a look at the World Heavyweight Championship. Lets say hypotethically, Cody Rhodes wins the Royal Rumble while Randy Orton goes into WrestleMania as the World Heavyweight Champion, and then you have DBD with his Money In The Bank briefcase. If Rhodes decides he'll go for the World Heavyweight Championship, that could push his career so much further, even if it were to become a Triple Threat match with DBD cashing in his chance. Rhodes may lose the match, but he'll still have the fact that he competed for the WWE's second tier Championship on the biggest event of the year, while if he didn't, he could be stuck in some makeshift match in the midcard with a celebrity nobody cares for.

Although the Royal Rumble may not have the same meaning as it did years ago, by where someone instantly gains the Main Event slot at WrestleMania, it still has meaning. The meaning is that you will go on to compete for the WWE/World Heavyweight Championship at the biggest event of the year, and as I used with ADR, it could change the course of your career. So really, these days winning the Royal Rumble may not guarentee you a WrestleMania victory as you seemingly imply, but it garners your career momentum, it sees you advertised, it sees your name pushed due to the pop culture spot WrestleMania has. Winning the Royal Rumbles still means a lot, but just in different ways.

 

[Redemption-2012]

As much as I want the match between Cena and The Rock, I really hope it aint for that WWE championship, why? because its being selfish and holding young talents back from having their WM moments and rock and Cena have both had their WM moments and now it time to step aside from that let someone new take their place. Cena does not need that championship he is already a big enough star that people will automatically call him the champ and for the rock, he is a hollywood star and just doesnt need it. It would be a waste and IMO would take away allot of the prestige because we can assume that the rock will leave after WM28 and that will be it. Make it Miz vs Punk for WWE championship or something! why does it have to be Rock vs Cena?

 

[TakeAdooKie]

I think both of you have some good points but here are my thoughts on the matter. The Royal Rumble has been around for 20 some years, and when something is around that long it requires some kind of change through out the years. The reason that they changed the format to 40 men instead of the classic 30 was probably not done for the sole reason that they have a bigger roster now. If we should've learned anything by now it's that WWE's scruples aren't all that high and they have no problem with leaving one or two of their top guys/gals off of a PPV card now and then. So why would they care about the hurt feelings of the wrestlers that get snubbed from the match all together?

It changed to 40 men because some marketing asshole had what he believed to be an awesome idea; "Bigger, Badder, Better!". So he rubbed his thumb and pointer finger together in front of Vince's face and BOOM! The Rumble adds 10 more men to the match and promotes it as the biggest match in history. They even used the "triple B" slogan and plastered it across the next video game, WWE 12'.

Now don't get me wrong, I personally enjoyed the 40 man Rumble although it was more of a mess then matches past. Del Rio won and was rewarded with a Championship match against Edge at Wrestlemania! Who cares if it was the first match of the night, it was still one of the Main Events. It was because just as the Royal Rumble has changed through out the years, so did Wrestlemania and a lot of other PPV's.

World Title matches can be the curtain jerker or some where in the middle now, people want to watch Main Events through out the whole show and not just watching 2 hours of average matches waiting. I'm not talking about people in the IWC, I'm talking about the average, run of the mill, "Sports Entertainment" fan of today. Overall though I like the way they do things now and I liked the things they did back when I was a kid too.

It's the evolution of the business, not a revolution. It may not be better then the days of yesteryear, but it's surely different and cators to the fans of the current generation, just like the Attitude Era and the 80's. Just enjoy it

 

[The Dragon Saga]

I think both of you have some good points but here are my thoughts on the matter. The Royal Rumble has been around for 20 some years, and when something is around that long it requires some kind of change through out the years. The reason that they changed the format to 40 men instead of the classic 30 was probably not done for the sole reason that they have a bigger roster now. If we should've learned anything by now it's that WWE's scruples aren't all that high and they have no problem with leaving one or two of their top guys/gals off of a PPV card now and then. So why would they care about the hurt feelings of the wrestlers that get snubbed from the match all together?

It changed to 40 men because some marketing asshole had what he believed to be an awesome idea; "Bigger, Badder, Better!". So he rubbed his thumb and pointer finger together in front of Vince's face and BOOM! The Rumble adds 10 more men to the match and promotes it as the biggest match in history. They even used the "triple B" slogan and plastered it across the next video game, WWE 12'.

You're basing that off the slogan of a revamped video game created by THQ in-reference as to why WWE boosted the number of participants in the Royal Rumble match when there were reports around the time of the Royal Rumble which stated WWE wanted to make it a forty person match because they felt that there were too many talents under contract and not utilizing them would be a waste?

Right. Good luck with that.

It's the evolution of the business, not a revolution. It may not be better then the days of yesteryear, but it's surely different and cators to the fans of the current generation, just like the Attitude Era and the 80's. Just enjoy it.

I agree with this section of your post. Its the evolution of the match, things have to change because over years they've became stale. Royal Rumble is no exception. Adding extra people just added more possibilities, the question of it meaning something is asinine. Of course it means something, as I've already pointed out.

Its could mean a change of course in the career of any one individual. Del Rio won it last year because Vince McMahon was high on his ass, whose to say come the Rumble this year he won't be high on Dolph Ziggler or R-Truth's back and have them claim victory? Again, it could alter the course of their careers. In one match.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Winning the Royal Rumble means that you will be fighting for the title at Wrestlemania, how does that not mean anything?

Take for instance Del Rio, he won the Royal Rumble, opened the next 2 PPV's (one being wrestlemania) and is now WWE champion. If you are winning the royal rumble it means the WWE is putting stock and money into you and your future, I would say that means a hell of a lot.

Does it really matter you can choose who you face at the rumble? I don't think so, its the natural progression of the business, in the early years the Royal Rumble didn't mean much, ask John Studd and Hacksaw Jim Duggan. Now if you win the Rumble it pretty much guarantee's you a spot in the main event in the next year. I would say that means a lot.

PS the Royal Rumble has lost prestige I admit, but that's because the titles themselves have little to no prestige left.

 

[TakeAdooKie]

I didn't mean that it doesn't mean anything. It can mean EVERYTHING to whomever wins it, unless it's someone who is already over and doesn't need the win; like Triple H or Taker, ect. Absolutely Del Rio would be doing something different right now instead of being the WWE Champion if he never won the Rumble. It can take a good career and make it legendary, and it has for quite a lot of men.

One thing I will say that I don't like is that when a person won the Rumble in the past, we kind of knew who'd they be facing come Wrestlemania. Now I'm not knocking that they can choose the title they go for, I think that's pretty cool. I'm knocking the next PPV on the "road to wrestlemania" Elimination Chamber. One of 12 guys walk out with the two top titles, usually always changing the course for WM.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

I'm celebrating my first thread to bring to attention what in my opinion has become the fall of THE ROYAL RUMBLE match as we know it.

Congratulations

Basically ever since 2003 the winner of the prestigious match now had a chance to choose which champion he wanted to face. Now I am all for choice but what is the point of winning the match and receiving a title match at Wrestlemania if some person you eliminate from the match will be receiving a title shot for the other world title at WM aswell? The fact that there are two world titles is bad enough but thats another story for another time.

I still think it's prestigious. Would you rather have a Winner under your belt or a runner-up? Fair enough, it might have been better when there was 1 World title, but things have changed, WWE has grown soo much the past few years, especially the roster which is why we now have 2 brands.

For instance Alberto Del Rio won the the rumble and didnt even main event the show. He was the first match of the night!! Although Edge vs Del Rio was one of the world title matches it was hardly the main event.

It was still a main event match, I don't think it meant anything less that it went first, it was still a good match and it kicked off WrestleMania with a bang! Something we needed after a Rocky promo. Not all winners have gone on to actually close the show at Mania. Some examples are Randy Savage, winner of 92 Rumble match, he had a great match with Flair at Mania, but Hogan main evented the ppv, another 1 being 95, where HBK won the match and he and Diesel didn't close the show, it was Bam Bigalow.

The last time a Royal Rumble winners has successfully become a champion at WM was The Undertaker and that was in 2007. Since then there has been four winners and four losers in their world title match. Ever since 07 it almost seems the winner as become secondary and put in the least favourable match.

Again, nothing wrong with not winning you're title match, I think because we've got 2 World title matches at Mania, we are kinda always promised a new champ. Also not winning at Mania, it just shows what the Rumble match is about, the winner is promised a World title shot, not a World title.

Unfourtunatly next years Royal Rumble already seems to be going down that same road. Cena vs The Rock will be for the WWE Championship and D Bryan will be cashing in his MITB assumingly against The WH Champion. So where does this leave The Rumble winner? It seems he will be some wrestler who will just be added to 1 of 2 title matches. To be winner The Rumble used to carry so much prestige but now thats non exsistent.

Don't lose hope, we are a long way away yet, anything can happen, and who knows we could be in for a better surprise when it comes to Mania, and The Rock/Cena match isn't confirmed to be a WWE title match.

What will this once prestigious event turn into over the years?

It's still a prestigious event, a lot of people order the ppv just because of the Rumble match itself, The ppv is like 2nd behind WrestleMania and has been going on for 20+ years.

 

[jace6911]

Maybe the Rumble should be brought down to 20 people - coming in every 2 and a half minutes - and have Qualifying matches in the lead up to the show ... so have 20 WORTHWHILE competitors who you could see main eventing - and maybe have the month between dec ppv and rumble ppv as a Draft tryout free agency deal. That way it gives the crowd no idea who will win, the winner can choose the title, and setup some new fueds for the WMania PPV! Just an idea

 

[EastCoastFan]

Who said Cena vs. Rock was going to be a title match? Those two are so big that they don't need a title on the line for the match to be important - it can just be Icon vs. Icon, like Rock vs. Hogan at WM 18.

Daniel Bryan, if he does indeed save his briefcase for WM 28, will not be in the main event. He's a phenomenal wrestler, but he lacks personality.

Of course, it IS possible that one of the title matches will be a triple threat match. Shawn Michaels was added to the main event of WM 20 because they didn't think Chris Benoit was a big enough draw to take on HHH by himself.

 

[Million Dollar Dream]

The royal rumble still does mean something usually the whole next year is about the person that won the rumble. The main event maybe they don't get because Undertaker's streak and Cena (this year featuring The Rock) took up the headlines. Del Rio would have won the title at Wrestlemania had Edge not been retiring a few days later. They wanted the story book ending and it's what they got.


This whole year has been about Del Rio doing big accomplishments between Money in The Bank, Winning the title, Winning the Rumble, etc. The rumble may not mean the main event however the winner still gets that whole year.

 

[TakeAdooKie]

Absolutely right! When someone wins the Rumble a certain amount of weight placed on their back to do the right thing and be a company man. It means that their going to be highlighted by the McMahon Promotional Machine, and they'd better do what's asked of them or else.

Del Rio did as he was told and was rewarded with the last match of Edge's life and lost, making the fans happy and exciting for most of the rest of the night. The Rock warmed them up and Edge and Del Rio set em' on fire. Plus I've always remembered the first match of Wrestlemania because it was usually one of the best. He's lucky for what he got and he knows it.

Now he's the Champ and is about to be in a high profile feud with John Cena, which I think he will win because Cena vs Rock shouldn't be a title match. He has it made, especially considering he's publicly said that he'd like to retire in 5 years. Vince wants future stars, not current stars, and Del Rio will not be on top any longer then Survivor Series.

 

[Mr.Fortuna]

Its not that Im an disgruntled fan its just that The Royal Rumble and the Wrestlemania main event went hand in hand with eachother but with 2 brands and so many superstars its just that the emphasis has changed a little bit on the winner, thats all.

I guess you cant compare the rumble pre 2003 to how it is done now because the overall mentality has changed.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I don't see when the RR stopped being prestigious exactly. Just because a few things have had to change over the course of, roughly a quarter of a century doesn't mean that the Royal Rumble has lost meaning.

Winning the RR has almost always been used to elevate guys to a higher level within the WWE. That's what happened with Alberto Del Rio. I know people are still pissing and moaning about the WHC opening WrestleMania this year but, honestly, so what? Give me a good solid match and I'm not overly concerned with where the match is on the card. I would have personally preferred the match be later of course but the fact that it wasn't didn't mean I didn't like the match.

As far as Cena vs. The Rock, how do you know it'll be for the WWE Championship? If that's the idea, then it gives away the outcome before the match even happens. The Rock isn't staying around after WM. He's not giving up his movie career, which is really on the rebound at this point in time, to go back to wrestling so he won't win the WWE Championship. Hence, there's no logical sense to have the title on the line.

 

[Maddog Lionheart]

I definitely do not thing that the Royal Rumble has lost meaning. Honestly, the Royal Rumble is probably the second biggest PPV for the WWE. The Royal Rumble always brings surprises, controversy, and unforgettable moments. It doesn't matter if the other championship is going to get defended anyways. THAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING TWO WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS AND TWO SHOWS! I believe you're looking too far into past and the whole "things were better way back when".

 

[fuzz69]

IMO alberto whatever his name is shouldnt even of won the rumble. I remember when people had to work to make a name for themselves then they won the rumble. People like The Rock,Stone Cold,Batista,Undertaker,and Hbk have won this match and they all made a name for themselves before they even won it. I remember shamus won the title after 3 months in the wwe and everyeone was like wtf and now del rio wins it. I think wwe finds ppl off the side of the street and says hey u wanna come win the rumble tonight. Anymore its a joke IMO until this new era came along people got tired of seeing all the stupid bs that was going on.

 

[Dagger Dias]

The Royal Rumble still means something. People tune in every year to watch it. Granted the last time a Rumble winner won at Wrestlemania was Undertaker in 2007 and he always wins his matches anyhow. He did not main event though. Cena won in 2008 but lost and did not main event. Orton won in 2009 the right to challenge Triple H for the WWE Championship, by last eliminating.... Triple H? He main evented but lost. In 2010 Edge won the Rumble but lost at Wrestlemania and did not main event. Del Rio won in 2011 but lost in the opening match. We have not seen a Rumble winner go on to main event AND win at Wrestlemania since Batista in 2005.

Why then am I defending the fact that the Rumble has not lost any prestige? Simple. The winner of the Royal Rumble goes to Wrestlemania no matter what while everyone else still has to earn it. Even the two world champions have to earn it through the Elimination Chamber. Winning the Rumble still has prestige even if you do not main event or win because it opens up the doors to Wrestlemania for you before anyone and guarantees a world title match.

 

[rge2010]

What was wrong with Del Rio vs Edge being on first at Wrestlemania? At least that match wasn't lost in the shuffle halfway through the event. I actually loved the fact it opened the event and I felt it gave the Title more prestige...on first because people couldnt wait to see it!!!

As for Cena vs Rock been for the WWE Title, it is a must in my eyes. The WWE Title. match will be lost at midcard if it isn't, completely taking the shine off it. That in turn will have an adverse effect on the WHW Title, unless it opens again!!!

I love Royal Rumble, second best event behind Wrestlemania. 40 men this year should be interesting. I always look forward to the surprises it brings. Maybe we will get Mick Foley, Chris Jericho, hell even Undertaker.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I think the thread of the title should read "ever remember a time when you looked back on the past with much nostalgia and thought that today's product isn't as good"? That's essentially what's going on here.

It's like people say "Hell in a Cell" doesn't mean anything anymore. Well, most of the gimmick named PPVs outdraw the other secondary PPVs, so yea, it still has value.

Just because things are DIFFERENT doesn't mean they don't have the same value just in a DIFFERENT way. Things have to evolve.

 

[TheTruthShallSetYouFree]

I would prefer to just have a 30 man Royal Rumble with just the very top guys competing in it. Not the low guys in the 'Santino Marella league.' This would make it much less predictable and will be more enjoyable. And if a new talent wins they would have proven themselfs to be the very best.