Royal Rumble: Pattern of Weak Challengers

[RoyHahn]

A pattern I have noticed is that the Royal Rumble world title matches usually consist of very weak challengers. Let's do a review:

In 2004, Hardcore Holly was the challenger to Brock Lesnar's WWE Championship.

In 2005, Randy Orton challenged for Triple H's World Heavyweight Championship. As we all know, Orton was not nearly as talented or as big a star as he is today.

In 2006, Mark Henry challenged for Kurt Angle's World Heavyweight Championship, I believe the only time Henry has challenged for a world title.

The 2007 Royal Rumble consisted of three weak challenges:

Test challenged for Lashley's ECW World Championship.
Mr. Kennedy challenged for Batista's World Heavyweight Championship[/b]
Umaga challenged for John Cena's WWE Championship.

In 2008, Jeff Hardy challenged for the WWE Championship while Rey Mysterio challenged for the World Heavyweight Championship.

In basically all of these instances, the challengers would never have won. We all knew it at the time also. The Royal Rumble is a Big Four pay-per-view and none of these matches could have main-evented Survivor Series, SummerSlam, or WrestleMania.

I am not disagreeing with the booking, since the WWE clearly wants star power in the Rumble. I'm just noticing the pattern. Do you all think the pattern will continue?

I'm inclined to think not totally this year. It seems that we'll be having Edge vs. Triple H as the WWE Championship match at Royal Rumble 2009, and my guess would be Cena vs. Jericho for the WHC.

Have you all noticed this pattern and do you think it will continue?

 

[8five]

There is clearly a pattern and I wouldnt be surprised if you have a random face challenger for edge that isn't Triple H or Hardy. As for Cena it could be a monster heel again instead of wasting Jericho on the match. The real issue is why don't they just have the loser of title matches be in the rumble and it solves all the problems. It use to be that people who had matches on the card were still in the rumble there is no reason why this changed and could set up revenge plot lines for a rumble winner leading into mania

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

I can definitely see Edge/HHH and Cena/Jericho happening, but for the hell of it, let's just assume that it'll continue and we'll get two poor choices for contenders.

If that was the case, I think Cena would be defending his title against JBL. Kane would work, but he is a like an anchor in the Royal Rumble. They depend on him to show up around the 10-13 mark and eliminate a few people. He's a cleaner. Could they relegate that position this time around to someone else, like Batista? Sure. But it seems like Kane eliminating a few people is one of those "given moments" in a RR, just like how there's going to be at least one person that gets eliminated in less than 30 seconds.

As far as Edge goes, that's a bit more challenging. It certainly wouldn't be Hardy or Undertaker, and Kennedy isn't going to be healed yet. Smackdown has no other faces that are even close to that level. They could possibly do Edge/Khali, which would certainly go along with the "piss poor match with a contender who isn't viable" idea.

But I don't think that'll happen. I think we'll get Edge/HHH and Cena/Jericho, which would certainly help the Royal Rumble's card out...although it knocks 4 huge names out of the rumble itself (though 2 of them wouldn't be in it anyway lol). But still, the RR has enough big names to make itself very entertaining....Taker, HBK, Hardy, Orton, Batista, Punk, Kane, etc.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I love when a newer poster comes up with a powerhouse thread. Very astute observation here.

You're absolutely right. The purpose of the Royal Rumbe event is, historically, two-fold:

1. Build up the champion as a legitimate, defending champ, and

2. Build up the Rumble Winner and the Main Event for Wrestlemania.

And yes, you have to ask yourself - is it worth a strong title match at the Rumble to lose that star power in the Rumble itself? For example, if Edge (or Hardy) is the WWE Champion heading into the Rumble, would you use Triple H in the title match, or use him in the Rumble? The latter is obviously true.

I am cool with a newer, lesser known challenger going for the title at the Rumble. Even if fans are relatively sure the champion will retain, it presents the "unknown" dynamic. Some examples:

1993. Bret Hart was challenged by Razor Ramon, and the match itself was a forgotten masterpeice. Bret's use of "limb psychology" and selling an injury to his ribs, as well as Razor's targeting of the ribs with his abdominal stretch and the commentators selling it, was really strong. But Bret's win over the larger Razor set up the match between him and Yokozuna for Wrestlemania 9.

Of course, this pattern of "weak challengers" is recent. For years on end, we had Michaels / Undertaker, Hart / Deisel, Angle / HHH, Foley / HHH, etc. But there are TWO THINGS to remember here:

1. The WWF was packed with stars at that time, and

2. THERE WAS ONLY ONE MAJOR CHAMPIONSHIP TO DEFEND.

The reason we see weaker challengers, is because we need a challenger for the WWE and WHC, and even the ECW to a lesser extent. To have two strong title match challengers at Royal Rumble is to lose two favorites in the match itself.

 

["Cool Guy" Jensen]

I really don't think that the Royal Rumble World Championship matches had ''weak'' challengers, just challengers whom you know have little to no chance of winning... almost underdogs, but not necessarily.

In 2004, Hardcore Holly challenged WWE Champion Brock Lesnar to get revenge on him for breaking his neck 16 months prior while Shawn Michaels challenged World Heavyweight Champion Triple H in a ''Last Man Standing'' match. Holly dominated the majority of the match while trying to break Lesnar's neck, but made a mistake and payed for it with an F-5. In a HHH/HBK match, HBK is always the underdog but always shows that he could dish out some hurting on his opponents, plus you know that a HHH vs. HBK match is almost promised to be good.

In 2005, Randy Orton challenged World Heavyweight Champion Triple H, while Kurt Angle and Big Show challenged J.B.L. for the WWE Championship. Orton proved in the past that he could beat ''The Game'', but was suffering from ''Post Concussion Syndrome'' causing the match to stop a little early.

In 2006, John Cena challenged WWE Champion Edge while Mark Henry challenged World Heavyweight Champion Kurt Angle. Cena won back his championship with ease. I have no idea how you could call Mark Henry weak... he's the ''World's Strongest Man'', but he did look like he would win the title at some points.

In 2007, Test challenged ECW Champion Bobby Lashley while Umaga and Mr. Kennedy challenged WWE Champion John Cena and World Heavyweight Champion Batista. I am a little angry that the Test/Lashley feud didn't last longer as I liked the little I saw. Umaga punished Cena way more despite the ending and Kennedy came close to winning the title many times in the match.

In 2008, Jeff Hardy challenged WWE Champion Randy Orton while Rey Mysterio challenged World Heavyweight Champion Edge. The WWE Championship match could have went either way depending on if WWE wanted to push Jeff then or later and Rey could not win simply because the stacks were against him. ECW Champion Chavo Guerrero did not defend the title because he just won it the last episode of ECW before the Rumble so there was no time to find a challenger.

After looking at these you can conclude one thing... whoever leaves the Royal Rumble will go on to defend their title at Wrestlemania. Now, if they lose or retain their championship, YOU BE THE JUDGE OF THAT.

 

[salomon1080s]

there is good reason why the royal rumble championship match's are weak. the royal rumble match is the main event and the reason to buy the ppv. It's smart save the bigger matches for a ppv that doesn't have a gimmick attached to it. So why not test an entertainer who is being pushed to the main event on a ppv they don't need to worry about the card as much.

 

[Rusty]

Interesting thread here.

I think the annual Royal Rumble Pay Per View needs to have weak challengers that have little to no hope of winning a major World Title. The Pay Per View sells for the Rumble match itself, not for the World Title matches. The World Championships hardly ever change hands at the Royal Rumble, because the main purpose of the show is to build up the champion as a strong and dominant superstar, but also to determine a strong challenger to the champion at the biggest show of the year, Wrestlemania.

Having both a new challenger and a new champion on the same night is quite confusing and pointless in a way. So I think for the reason I previously mentioned, the challengers to the big titles on the night, need to be rather weak. Plus, you don't want all your stars in title matches instead of the Rumble match. The 30 man match needs multiple possible winners, otherwise it's too predictable.

Last years event was good though. Jeff Hardy had a good chance at winning the WWE Championship, and hell I almost believed that he was going to finally win the big one. Rey Mysterio had little to no chance at winning, since Edge only recently won the title at the previous pay per view. Hardy wasn't in the Rumble because he had little to no chance of winning it, so the WWE was smart by making him challenging for the WWE Title, and even I ordered the event for both the WWE Title match and the Rumble match. And I rarely ever order pay per views.

So quite frankly, the Rumble match itself is far more important than the two World Title matches. Also, the Royal Rumble show is a perfect opportunity to get the young guys to be put in a challenging situation by facing the World Champion, just as a little practice run. See Mr Kennedy in 2007 and Jeff Hardy in 2008 for an example of this. But this year, since Edge vs Triple H has already been done and nobody wants or believes that Triple H will win the Rumble match, it's a good chance to have that match to take place here so a young gun can win the Rumble, hopefully. The same goes with a possible Cena vs Jericho match.

If those two matches take place, then I'm convinced a new main eventer/world champion will be born in 2009. I'm personally hoping either Jeff Hardy or Mr Kennedy wins the match itself. The "Weak Challengers" pattern should end in 2009 though.

 

[Richard]

After looking at these you can conclude one thing... whoever leaves the Royal Rumble will go on to defend their title at Wrestlemania. Now, if they lose or retain their championship, YOU BE THE JUDGE OF THAT.

Not necessarily.

Brock Lesnar retained at Royal Rumble and lost the WWE Championship at No Way Out and did not have a championship match at WrestleMania 20. Eddie Guerrero did.

Having these 'weaker' competitors in world championship matches is good though. It lets the WWE save some bigger names for the Royal Rumble, which is what the PPV is all about, the Royal Rumble match. The championship matches are not as important as they would usually be and it's a good time to give some younger guys a high profile match or a couple of older wrestlers a high profile match aswell, like Hardcore Holly. I'm not a big fan of world titles changing hands at a Royal Rumble as I think the main focal point should be the Rumble and it's winner.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

I think personally that it's a great opportunity for upper-mid card guys to prove that they can transcend into the Main Event tier, in very much the same way the Scramble matches did at Unforgiven. Those matches made me personally, gain a new level of respect for The Miz and solidified my belief that THE Brian Kendrick has what it takes to pull off long, well constructed matches on PPV.

Now obviously back in '04 someone was on acid that night and thought it was a good idea to put Hardcore Holly in a WWE title match, despite the fact that even though he'd suffered a broken neck and was gunning for SD's top heel, that the audience couldn't have cared less. The match itself was pretty forgettable. It was difficult to believe that Holly could really hurt Lesnar as Lesnar had spent the majority of the year that Holly was rehabbing, destroying veterans and ME players who were already far better then poxy Hardcore Holly.

Mark Henry getting a title shot is something else that makes me shudder just thinking about it, but hey, loads of big guys with snails pace offense have had title shots in the past so why should he be held out of the loop?

But Kennedy and Test? Test had all the attributes and talent to make it to the ME spot and for some reason they booked him to just walk out on the match, an then he never did anything else of merit if i recall. But Kennedy had an awesome match at RR '07. The fans were behind him, and they made Kennedy look as though he could actually defeat Batista with the gold on the line, but since then he's been relegated back to mid card due to his suspensions and injuries and we'll probably never know if he can hang with the ME guys.

Oh and for the record, not ALL champions who win at the Rumble go on to defend at Mania. Richard already pointed out about Eddie Guerrero and Lesnar, but The Rock beat Kurt Angle for the title at NWO in 2001 so he could in turn lose it Austin, and Angle wrestled Chris Benoit in a regular singles match at Mania that year

Anyway, no it's not likely that we'll see ANY World titles change hands at the Royal Rumble, but it's still a great opportuniy for rising stars to break through to the Main Event tier, even if they're back at the bottom several months down the line i.e. Umaga, Kennedy, Holly, Henry etc etc


Edge isn't going to lose the WWE title anytime soon, and i personally forsee a HHH/Edge match for the Rumble and Hardy winning the RR match itself, thereby allowing him to win the title at WM.

 

[justinsayne]

I'm guessing the biggest reason their are usually weak challengers at the rumble is casue they want to save their ME talent for the Rumble match itself, also they like to use this as an opportunity to see if certain guys are ready to handle a ME title feud, I beleive Kennedy, Hardy, Umaga, & Henry are all examples of this, with that said, I see this years title matches being Edge/Jeff, and yeah I know someone is gonna comeback with some crap about how they're saving that match for WM or some shit, I think that's a load of crap and think that Trips/Edge is a more likely WM match, than Hardy/Edge, Hardy has still not proven, at least not to me, that he is responsible enough to handle the ME of WM, where as Trips has proven time and time again he can handle it, so Hardy/Edge at the Rumble just seems more likely, as for Cena, I could see him ending his feud with Jericho at the Rumble, but wouldn't be surprised to see a short Cena/Kane feud happen also, Cena/Kane have never really feuded to my knowledge, so why not throw them together at the Rumble? possiably have them continue the feud on and finish it at NWO

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

I'm guessing the biggest reason their are usually weak challengers at the rumble is casue they want to save their ME talent for the Rumble match itself, also they like to use this as an opportunity to see if certain guys are ready to handle a ME title feud, I beleive Kennedy, Hardy, Umaga, & Henry are all examples of this, with that said, I see this years title matches being Edge/Jeff, and yeah I know someone is gonna comeback with some crap about how they're saving that match for WM or some shit, I think that's a load of crap and think that Trips/Edge is a more likely WM match, than Hardy/Edge, Hardy has still not proven, at least not to me, that he is responsible enough to handle the ME of WM, where as Trips has proven time and time again he can handle it, so Hardy/Edge at the Rumble just seems more likely, as for Cena, I could see him ending his feud with Jericho at the Rumble, but wouldn't be surprised to see a short Cena/Kane feud happen also, Cena/Kane have never really feuded to my knowledge, so why not throw them together at the Rumble? possiably have them continue the feud on and finish it at NWO

I was thinking about Cena/Kane as an option, and the more I think about it, the more I think its likely to happen if they don't just continue the Jericho feud. Assuming Hardy wins the Royal Rumble, that would mean the Elimination Chamber would be on Raw's side, and since they need 6 people to fill that up, they have a lot to pick from when you list Batista, Orton, Jericho, Michaels, Punk, JBL, and Mysterio. Granted the last 3 really would have no shot at it, but they'd still be good filler for an EC match.

The only thing that sort of derails Kane having a title match is obviously his role in the Royal Rumbles themselves, which, as I noted before, they could just shift the responsibility to Batista or some other powerhouse. It doesn't necessarily need to be Kane that throws out 5 or 6 people...just tradition.

So yeah, if Raw ends up not having Cena/Jericho, I think the most likely substitute is going to be Kane.

As for Smackdown's side...I'm hoping for Hardy/Edge at WM, and if not that, then Hardy/Edge/HHH in a triple threat. If we go with that, I can't see Undertaker facing Edge at the Royal Rumble, and then most others are faces, so its a shock but Khali would probably be their next choice as he could job to Edge and make Edge look very, very solid as a champion by defeating someone much bigger. Plus, Khali doesn't have much time left in the company as it is, and although he'd be a great choice for someone that could be eliminated in the RR to help push someone, now that he's a face it'll have less of an impact.

 

[klunderbunker]

It makes sense to have the weak opponents here. It allows for there to be a weak feud to lead up to the big ones for the Rumble. Feuds here are really just filler. When guys like Holly or someone else weak challenges for the belt, there's next to no chance they'll get it. The only reason that this happens is so that there can be a championship match on the Rumble. There's rarely a chance that the title will change hands, but people simply like hearing the words "for the so and so title". It gives it the big match feel. Having the weak opponents is perfect as it allows there to be title matches and mini feuds before the big ones start for Mania.

 

[Khalifa]

Yeah i don't believe it having "weak challengers". just people who people would think don't have much chance of winning in the rumble or the title.

2003. chris benoit vs kurt angle. i loved this match and no way in hell you could call benoit a weak challenger back then. i didn't no who was going to win this seriously.

triple h vs scott steiner. ok well it was obvious who was going to win this. but hey it was great story line IMO. steiner beating every one in his way while triple h says he has beat every one. triple h the under dog. and having triple h win the match here made him jsut more credible. but yeah steiner had no chance of winning.

2004. hbk vs triple h. again same as the year before jsut building up hhh. he didn't matter who won but havign triple h hold the title more made him more of a champ.

hardcore holly vs brock lesnar. ok well again no chance of winning but it made holly look more strong and lesnar weak. story line wise it was ok. but i find it funny how you guys say " holly was a weak challenger". well who else was meant to wreslte. some one broke holly's neck. oh no need to worry it doesn't matter i will just work my way back to the top with out getting revenge. ha ha.

2005. triple threat. well we all wanted the title of jbl . so any title match with jbl in it we thought he had a chance of loosing. so angle really was the " favourite". i thought angle was gonna win here.

orton vs hhh. well orton didn't really have a chance. but the feud had to keep going. and well orton proved he could be a champ. why couldn't he do it then? apart from teh obvious story line with batista.

2007 and 2006 i didn't watch raw and smackdown because i moved and we needed foxtel.

2008: jeff hardy vs randy orton. well jeff really did have a shot. it was a great build, orton had nothign happening with him in the future . no reason why jeff couldn't of taken the title here. fantastic build.

edge vs mysterio: i am not even gonna speak about this. i really did not see the point of having rey here. why not make some one into the main event. or have kane vs edge on what was originally meant to happen.

 

[Tim]

They have weak opponents here, because usually the World title matches are the Main Event(s). But at the Royal Rumble, obviously the Royal Rumble match is the Main Event, and they have that as the big match. So the World Title matches don't have to be big matches where anyone can win. They can have a completely one sided match. They can have a filler if they really want to. As for the matches for 2009, I think they'll go with Cena/Kane, and Edge/Khali, probably. They don't even need to have a buildup for the Rumble if they don't want to. But Kane might be needed in the Rumble, so I could see them poutting Cena/Jericho in there, again.

 

[Freakinflax]

Nobody remembers classic matches such as HBK breaking his back in the casket match, or Rock/Mankind I Quit, or HHH/Angle, or HHH/Cactus? Great matches.

I think more recently there have def. been weak challengers though.

Oh yeah thanks Scottie Pippen how could I forget Angle/Benoit! I was there and it was prob the best match I've seen live.

 

[George Michael]

Having the weak challenger/obvious loser in the title fight's at Rumble is great exposure for the challenger. On a PPV that will be bought by many - just for the match itself - fighting for the title is sometimes better than getting lost in the Rumble shuffle.

The environment of the title match may provide time for thought and experiment that would be out of place in the Rumble match (ie. limb psychology in the Hart/Razor match that was mentioned earlier).

The Kennedy/Batista match was the first time I had seen someone intensely fight the Batista Bomb. When Kennedy was hauled up onto Batisita's shoulders, he began punching Batista in the face. He still got bombed, but he went down fighting; great exposure for Kennedy.