Roman Reigns was the perfect choice to win the Royal Rumble

[ヒュー　G.　レックション]

After the 2015 Royal Rumble, it was a hell of an exciting time in wrestling. Roman Reigns ended up winning and the crowd shat all over it. Some believe it was because Roman Reigns was being forced down our throats and others believe it was because a returning Daniel Bryan had been eliminated fairly early on in an anticlimatic fashion which soured the fans. Personally I lean towards the latter but hey perhaps it was a combination of the two.

Now I was very much excited to see just how they would address the scenario! The fans clearly were not happy with this result and they couldn't just pretend everything was fine. Unfortunately Raw got delayed because of the snowstorm so we were kept waiting another week. TRiple H then said "the controversy ends".

I thought the way this was handled was great, considering the circumstances. Roman, being booked as a top babyface had overcome all possible odds so it's not like he could be faulted from a kayfabe perspective on his win. Likewise, Bryan was eliminated fair and square by Bray Wyatt.

Triple H and Stephanie in a promo used the logic that because the Rock had beat up Show and Kane (after they were eliminated) this meant the winner "could've been someone else" that only possible someone being Rusev. Now of course that should've meant Rusev got a chance at Fastlane too lol but he was US Champion and I don't think anybody cared about him being "screwed". Creative just needed a way to "taint" Roman's win and while it's not completely flawless, at least it was something.

As for Bryan, well he never lost the belt, and Triple H says something along the lines of "had [Bryan] not just gone headstrong into the Rumble, we may have given you a title shot". So they were able to use that to give Bryan a legitimate claim to a title shot.

Therefore: Fastlane. Bryan vs Reigns. For me a "dream match" not only because I was big fans of both, but because it felt like WWE was actually listening to its fans! I believe at the time the rumours were that, had there been no controversy, Reigns would've been slated to face Big Show lol and I was truly on the edge of my seat wondering who WWE would go with, either the fans' choice Bryan, stick with their original pick Reigns, or have a screwy finish which lead to a triple threat at Mania..

I was all for Bryan winning, because not only did I think he was much better than Reigns, but because Bryan vs Lesnar would've been a true dream match! And not only a great match, but I'm sure it would've been a very unique one.

So their match at Fastlane was pretty good, and Reigns won. I was saddened, but nonetheless happy that at least WWE acknowledged the issue and dealt with it. By having Reigns beat Bryan with no screwage, fans couldn't exactly start rallying behind Bryan, they had to accept Reigns was the guy to face Lesnar.

However I truly thought WWE was in a no-win situation. There was no way the unpinnable Lesnar could keep the belt, but on the other end, could Lesnar really lose to Reigns. No matter who won, fans would not like the outcome. I also had severe doubts as to the quality of the match. I frankly thought it was going to be terrible,. But still very curious as to how it would all play out.

Wrestlemania 31 I think is one of the best Mania's ever produced. I put it up there with 17 and 19. Near enough every match delivered. And the main event defied all of my expectations. It was a fantastic match, and I was marking out left right and centre, hanging on every nearfall, it's my favourite match of the year thus far.

The finish was genius. Brock Lesnar was unpinnable, and fans wouldn't buy into Reigns beating him. However, WWE couldn't have Lesnar win, and didn't want to waste their investment into Reigns. Therefore, you have Rollins cash in his MITB, but cash in during the match! Here, you have solved all problems. Lesnar is still unpinnable, but loses the title. Reigns still looks good, doesn't lose directly to Lesnar but is screwed out of potentially winning that match. And the belt is on someone most of the fans enjoy and felt deserving of the title: Seth Rollins.

It also made perfect sense to cash in during the match from Seth Rollins perspective. If he had waited until after the match, Lesnar may have won and of course, LEsnar is unpinnable so Rollins would've lost. By cashin in Rollins could target the "weaker" of the two and still get the belt off of Lesnar. It was also a unique setup and prevented the "cheapness" that usually entails with a MITB cash in.

Now I ask, had Bryan won at Fastlane, or even the Rumble itself, what would have happened? He had to leave again because of injury shortly after Mania with his IC title ladder match and vacate the belt. We still don't know if he can or will ever return. Could he have even worked a match with Lesnar in his state? Would Rollins have still cashed in? If Bryan had won wouldn't it have been just a repeat of him vacating the title again? Would the fans have turned on Bryan? And would we have gotten a match as classic as Reigns vs Lesnar?

It's my belief Reigns was the best possible choice to win the Rumble. I of course didn't think that at the time but in hindsight there was no better alternative that I can think of.

My question to all of you is who would you have had win the 2015 Royal Rumble and face Lesnar at Mania?

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

At the time I would have still picked Bryan taking into account that we would not have known that he would have suffered an injury not too long after. But even so WWE could have used Rollins' Cash in as a backup plan or just have Lesnar retain at WM.

At that point Bryan was still the most over in the company and fans weren't tired of him yet.

Reigns wasn't ready yet and WWE knew that which is why they did everything to keep Reigns from getting booed even having The Rock do a surprise run in. I mean if you needed another superstar from another era to endorse your new face of the company to try to get him over, then he should not be the new face of the company yet.

 

[Gavschenko]

He was the best choice as we now know about bryans injuries but its quite shocking that roman reigns was the only guy it made sense to win as this shows how bad the roster is it was so predictable aswell he was winning which is why people booed once bryan was elminated, WWE has still not made anyone exciting for me to care about and which is why the ratings are down, so yeah id have had reigns win as nobody else would even come close to being taken seriously against brock

 

[MWRedskins]

no, i still say it was the wrong choice in the end mainly because of what happened with Reigns being booed out of the arena. Reigns would've been the perfect choice if WWE had decided to keep Bryan out of the rumble (by not having him return), but when they had Bryan return, he should've won it right away, went on to face Brock only to have Rollins cash in there. the fans would've then hated Rollins worse since he ruined yet another YES movement title run.

 

[wrestler36]

this is a wildcard off the top of my head just because we're coming up on Survivor Series, but I think Dolph Ziggler could have won the Rumble and inserted into the main event. I say this because he was the sole survivor of that previous Surivor Series, received a MONSTROUS pop from that crowd and quite frankly from most crowds and WWE could've have rekindled that flame. He was a previous WWE champion and one of their best workers. They could have re-established him as a top guy rather than a reliable midcard guy, especially now that they are lacking star power.

 

[Prince Vee]

How many times we've to take this banter? It's not clearly the hatred went off guard because Roman Reigns won the Royal Rumble, it's the dreadful way how it was booked. The way the fan favourites got eliminated played a big part in the booing of Roman Reigns. For ages we had stars shoved down our throats but nonetheless we enjoyed.

But the way Daniel Bryan got eliminated and that too so early spoiled the match. Dean Ambrose and Dolph Ziggler were just thrown out like trash by The Authority members. Bray Wyatt who dominated the whole match got eliminated in the same way.

Didn't you remember what Stone Cold said about the Rumble? Roman didn't even get as much camera time in the match. It was all Bray Wyatt. He was either laying down in the corner or stomping someone in the corner. The crowd didn't enjoy it and when things gets more and more dreadful, they started to shower hatred on Reigns.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Why would anyone want a Bryan v Lesnar main event at WM? Wasn't it enough that the hairy midget won the belt at WM the previous year?

Lesnar would murder Bryan in the ring. No-one can believe that a stick like Bryan could beat a muscular, much bigger ape like Brock Lesnar. If Bryan won, then two years of Lesnar dominating, including ending the Streak, would be flushed down the toilet.

So, Brock would destroy Taker, Mark Henry and The Big Show, but then falls to a little hairy man. Hell, even David needed a weapon to beat Goliath.

But if Bryan didn't win, then the crybaby spoiled brat "Yes" Movement would all carry on like twits even more than usual the night after Wrestlemania.

In no universe would Daniel Bryan topple Brock Lesnar. I know it is pre-determined. but it still has to be realistic.

At least Reigns had the body shape and size to match Lesnar, making it a 50-50 battle, or at least, 55-45 Brock's way.

This is why I hope that Bryan doesn't come back until after Wrestlemania 32. Otherwise, the Royal Rumble Match and Wrestlemania season would be spoiled by idiot "Yes" Movement fans who think they run things. Bryan not being around has allowed others to shine.

 

[Vanilla Midget]

Perfect is definitely a strong word. Roman was the right choice, but they had no time to get him over. If Reigns was riding a rocket ship to the top, then he should have gone over the man who makes the rockets.

Roman should have worked a program against Triple H during the lead up to the Rumble. I even would have had a match at the Rumble with a spot on the line, ala Lesnar and Big Show in 2003.

One of the biggest and most valid complaints is that Roman had little to no major wins under his belt. Why not have him face off against your top heel?

Next, book him to actually win. Kane and the Big Show won the 2015 Royal Rumble. They cleaned house in kayfabe, and had The Rock not been there, they would have won (this is all kayfabe, it's not real to me I assure you).

So, Roman wins with a save from Rocky. Sure, he still had beat Rusev, but he wouldn't have gotten that far without The Rock interfering. And that's what he did, he interfered. There's nothing in the Rumble rules that rules out collusion. Kane and Show were well within their rights to team up.

Why on Earth did they not have Roman beat Kane and Big Show? Beating Rusev after doesn't make up for that.

Wyatt dominated the Rumble, and he was eliminated by the colossally stale duo as well. Couple all this with an anticlimactic Bryan elimination and you have a recipe for boos.

The Rumble was bad no matter who won. Reigns should have entered earlier and he assist from the Rock only made him look bad. Reigns could have even entered at number one or two. Would have dealt with the no adversity thing.

WWE needs to build new stars, so Roman winning makes sense. He's younger that Bryan and Ziggler, and he doesn't have the neck and head related sports injuries like those two. I'm not taking Bryan's later absence into account here.

Ziggy and the Goat were basically the only other viable options aside from Roman, who in theory is a solid choice. He's got the look, he wants to be there, he wants to improve. The crap was that WWE didn't do anything to get him over, and they booked him to look weak doing it.

It's the same as putting anyone over in any wrestling angle, the person has to be credible to the win to matter. Roman can and will be credible, but they didn't do the work to get him there.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

At that time all others were kinda busy. Rollins was busy with Lesnar and Cena and had MiTB. Cena was busy with Lesnar. Out off all possible candidates it was either Bryan or Reings. And Bryan was unreliable because of injury before which has(at my sadness) proved right call by WWE because guy was injured after and still they wont clear him to wrestle. Only other solution I could think from the top of my head is Undertaker. But he doesnt need title match for himself to meddle with Brock, which we saw this year. So Reigns was good choice at that time. Unfortunatly for him everything else was bad choice...

First off, they semi- successfull established him with Shield and continued with disbandment to establish him. He won against Orton on Summerslam. Then as soon as he was moved to Rollins he needed surgery. Then he comes back, you give the guy "Superstar of The Year" Slammy just to establish who you think its the future and then you give him feud with Big Show for cryin outloud. Then you gave the guy Superman lines instead of just letting him badass and tearing down the house and have him be like that in promos even if they have to be short. Then its Rumble time. You book Rumble in Philly, and give him one of the worst bookings ever where he is in the corner almost entire time instead of tearing down the house and at the end you expect smarkiest city in the world to root for the guy you almost put on pedestal as "Savior of WWE, Cena no2" against Big Show in Kane. In the year 2015. Oh, and at the top of that you booked maybe most hottest face in modern times Bryan by giving him time before Rumble instead of after Rumble and eliminated him in mid match by Lame Wyatt. Not even Rock and most hottest heel in that time Rusev could save Reigns from that chorus of booes. Afterward all WWE could do is to lower the damage.

So there you go, right man, wrong everything else. If they did some of the bookings differently maybe it would even work. Heck, nobody can say that Lesnar- Reigns was bad Wrestlemania mainevent. And even thinking nobody can say that this wasnt good promo work by Reigns and it was one day after Rumble.

[youtube]DKsej4TqcEQ[/youtube]

 

[Lord_Frish]

Reigns was the only choice. Still it was the worst booked Royal Rumble in recent memory. Firstly, Reigns was the only choice. Bryan was a distant second. Ambrose was probably third most likely, which shows how badly the build up was booked. Bryan gets eliminated about half way through. Everyone knew it would be Reigns from that point on.

Bray Wyatt dominated the early part of the match, it was almost a complete rehash of CM Punk dominating the Royal Rumble with the Nexus a few years back. They job out half of the 30 wrestlers to one faction, then have one semi strong competitor come in and last against them. Neither the semi strong competitor or the guy who dominated half the rumble ever win. We all know this.

The closing stages were dominated by a heel faction as well, but in the most boring fashion possible. Kane and Big Show, guys who can't move anymore, who can't draw heat and sure as hell can't main event Wrestlemania. It should have been Bray dominating the closing moments of the rumble. He is more believable than those two as a possible main eventer.

They were worried that Bryan was going to get injured so they didn't give him the win, a worry that proved true. They should have kept Bryan out of the Rumble, let him heal up a bit more. Focus the build towards the rumble on almost anyone but Reigns. Ziggler or Ambrose seem like the best choices here. Have Reigns come in decently early, against the dominating heel faction. (preferably Big Show and Kane) he can get beat up and lay in the corner for half an hour, with some spots thrown in, then make the comeback victory against the heel faction (preferably the Wyatts) in the closing moments. That would have gotten a bigger reaction.

WWE has taught us for nearly 20 years now to hate the chosen one. They told us to boo the corporate champion, The Rock, they told us to boo the GM's and their wrestlers. Now they expect us to cheer the chosen ones. If they want us to do that, they need to make it less obvious who they have chosen. Basically they need to imitate that Bryan build up, screw a guy out of title shots behind the scenes. Tell the dirt sheets you don't want Reigns as champion. The crowd might get behind him then, although it is too late for that now for him.

 

[Aquaman6686]

Reigns was the wrong choice. The fans didn't turn on Reigns just because Bryan was eliminated and Reigns was shoved down their throats. It's because Bryan lasted ten minutes, then Dean Ambrose lasted five, and Dolph Ziggler lasted two. I was in the front row for the Rumble and Reigns' hate was NUCLEAR, not just because of himself, but because everyone the crowd wanted was booked like garbage. The three most popular guys in the match were all made to look like jokes so WWE could say, "You WILL get Roman Reigns at WrestleMania, and you WILL like it", and of course nobody wanted it.

I disagree about the WM31 main event. I've never hated a main event match at a WrestleMania so much, with the exception of WM2 and WM11, the first of which I wasn't old enough to see live, since I was a fetus until about two months later. It was slow, plodding, boring, and generic. It was worse than house show level matches. Only Rollins' cashing in saved it from being an utter disaster. A lot of fans love the WM31 main event because "It was so much better than I expected!". Well, I went in expecting a 0 on a scale of 1-10, and got a 1.5. So was it better than expected? Yes...but a piece of crap is still a piece of crap.

Daniel Bryan out-wrestling Brock Lesnar would have been a better story and believable. Dolph Ziggler out-performing Brock Lesnar would have been a better match and believable. As much as I hate him, even Dean Ambrose out-fighting Brock Lesnar would have been better, and believable. But Roman Reigns, who can't wrestle OR perform OR fight, out-fighting Brock Lesnar? Laughable, and not in any way believable. After an otherwise fantastic WrestleMania, the main event was a massive letdown and a piece of crap. It was like a meal - the appetizers were delicious, the side dishes were delicious, the main course was delicious...but the chocolate cake for dessert to close out the meal was made from shit instead of chocolate.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

2 thing would've been absolutely necessary for it to go over in a good way, and it still wouldn't guarantee it.

1) Reigns not getting injured. It killed all his momentum and denied him a chance at a really good feud leading up to the Rumble win.

2) DB couldn't return before the Rumble. He was still riding the YES movement wave and fans were going to shit on most anything that wasn't him.

 

[MWRedskins]

They should have kept Bryan out of the Rumble, let him heal up a bit more. Focus the build towards the rumble on almost anyone but Reigns.

i agree 100%. that was my issue with the Royal Rumble. the fact is (love him or hate him) that Bryan was a major fan favorite at the time. the fans wanted to see HIM win or they would start to boo. the BEST booking decision would've been to avoid even having Bryan in the rumble, give him more time to heel, bring him back at Wrestlemania, have him wrestle Kane at MANIA, no matches until WM for Bryan, that would've had the fans wanting Bryan and would've made it interesting. as for the rumble itself, Reigns winning it wasnt the issue, it was the booking. dont have Show and Kane dominate it, have it be a great rumble match where Ambrose gets rid of kane and have Ambrose and Ziggler in the end eliminate each other to leave Show and Reigns where Reigns wins. that would've been better booking. have Ambrose and Ziggler last a long time in the match and have their desire for the championship cost them because they battle over the top rope...in other words, dont have anyone, but themselves eliminate them. Big Show and Kane dominating like they did caused much more channel changing heat in that match then anything.

 

[OYDK]

Who else was there really? Other than Bryan, Ziggler had no chance, Ambrose was not nearly ready to headline Mania, Rusev was US champ, Cena had already faced Lesnar three times that year... Reigns was really the only choice they could have gone with OTHER than DB.

Now if we're comparing the two in hindsight, yes Reigns was obviously the better choice. Knowing what we know now about Daniel Bryan's neck and concussion issues, a 20 minute trip to Suplex City wouldn't have done his body any favors. Lesnar continues to roll as an unstoppable beast thanks to Mania 31's alternate ending and two new stars are created in Reigns and Rollins. A Bryan win would have likely led to him actually pinning Brock and than VACATING THE TITLE RIGHT AFTER. What a friggin disaster that would have been.

At the time, I could understand people being upset. They wanted to be entertained NOW and screw the long-term. Bryan was the now and Reigns was the long-term. But again, hindsight being 20/20, Reigns was the much better choice to headline Mania than Bryan was given the current landscape of WWE.

 

[ShinChan]

Maybe Roman Reigns would have the right choice if
1. Daniel Bryan didnot return at Royal Rumble
2. The Rock wasnot involved in the match
3. Big Show and Kane didnot dominate the match
4. Dean Ambrose and Dolph Ziggler would have given more time
5. Reigns would have entered at 1 or 2...