Royal Rumble VS Money in the Bank

[EZMoney20]

As we all know, winning either the Royal Rumble or Money in the Bank contract can push a WWE superstar's career to the next level. Currently, which match has a better chance of benefiting the winner's career? Or more specifically, think of your favorite WWE superstar, and tell us which match you would prefer them to win. And why?

The Royal Rumble debuted in 1988, and aside from a few rare instances, the winner of the Royal Rumble earns a World Title opportunity in the main event of Wrestlemania.

Money in the Bank debuted at Wrestlemania in 2005, and the winner of the contract earns a future World Title match whenever they choose as long as the match occurs within 1 year of winning the contract.

Over time, each match has remained exactly the same; however, the rewards of winning the two respective matches have changed. For instance, when the Royal Rumble debuted, there was only one world title, the WWE Championship. Now, the winner has the choice of choosing either the WWE Championship or the World Heavyweight Championship. On the flip side, the winner is no longer guaranteed the main event of Wrestlemania.

In comparison, the Money in the Bank match debuted when there were already two world championships. As a result, the winner had a huge advantage in not only choosing the time and place but also in choosing the champion. Now, there are two Money in the Bank matches. Each world championship has their own exclusive contract. While that may allow for two winners each year instead of just one, the winners are now limited to a specific belt.

I think this is an extremely tough choice. On one hand, by winning the Royal Rumble, the superstar is guaranteed a championship match at Wrestlemania. In addition, the push throughout the road to Wrestlemania will be huge. Also, the superstar has the benefit of either winning the world title at Wrestlemania to have an unforgettable Wrestlemania moment, or at the very least, a feud continuing rematch at the next pay-per-view. The problem; however, is that Wrestlemania's landscape is changing.

For the past few years, the winner of the Royal Rumble seems to have been slighted and has been going for the World Heavyweight Championship (which has been devalued significantly over the last several years). I think the main reason for this is because of the amount of celebrities and part-time legends who are performing. For example, The Rock, Brock Lesnar, the Undertaker, and Triple H are just 4 big names that will most likely be involved in Wrestlemania next year. In addition, John Cena and C.M. Punk are undoubtedly going to be involved in big storylines. Unless one of those names win the 2013 Royal Rumble, next year's winner will most likely be going for the World Heavyweight Championship again. Considering that match has opened the card the past 2 Wrestlemanias, I doubt it will get the amount of attention as the other big matches.

I think winning the MITB contract has become a lot more favorable because the superstar has one full year to cash in the contract. If they are not a current main eventer, the creative team has plenty of time to slowly build them up. In addition, they will most definitely cash in successfully and have a world title reign. Of course, their ultimate success or failure will depend on the superstar and the creative team.

Overall, both matches can be criticized for having slight flaws, but the overwhelming responses for each match are positive. Winning either match can certainly have a MAJOR impact on one's career.

 

[Salman]

To me, i'd have to say the Royal Rumble. It's still more prestigious and as you said, the push that the superstar gets along the road to WM benefits him more than the push he would get before cashing in the MITB contract. However its true that the Royal Rumbles pretentiousness is diminishing and this year I think they're going to kill the Royal Rumble concept. There's a huge chance it's not going to main event the PPV because of the Rock vs Punk match. The winner will go for the WHW title since Rocky, Cena and Punk will occupy the WWE championship picture. The match will be like a filler match with all of the other stars scheduled to appear. So in my opinion, the Royal Rumble's pretentiousness will RIP following 2013's PPV. I know I went a little off topic but im kind of high so teddy bear with me.

 

[KingOfKings249]

Money In The Bank gives you a better chance of actually winning .. (I'd take on 6 guys compared to 30 or 40 any day)

The Rumble looks better in your resume since your going through a large amount of superstars and have an (almost) guaranteed Wrestlemania mainevent match

 

[Bone For Tuna]

I would say that in the last few years, the MITB briefcase has become more important than winning the Rumble and that's kind of disappointing considering the history of the Rumble and all the awesome wrestlers that have won it. Winning the Rumble now a days, sure it means something and you still get a guaranteed title match at Mania, but now it's almost a given that you're going on as the first match of the card.

Meanwhile whoever has the MITB briefcase is usually given a lot of TV time and when they finally do cash it in, it's usually somewhat memorable.

 

[XXJJ]

MITB is great for a midcard chicken shit heel character. If thats not your gimmick than its pointless to win because it will make you look like a weak fluky champion.

Winning the Rumble is still more important in a wrestlers career and viewed as a much bigger accomplishment. Just look at the list of wrestlers that won the Royal Rumble. Besides Del Rio and Vince.. Sheamus too is kind of borderline, but the rest of the winners are hall of famers or future hall of famers.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Generally speaking, I'd say that they're on equal terms as to what they might mean to a wrestler's career. Both of them ultimately give a wrestler the opportunity to main event and/or walk away as a World Champion. The Royal Rumble is one of the few aspects in wrestling today that firmly has its roots in old school wrestling. Battle royals aren't something we see a lot of, in any era, and no other battle royal really comes close. A lot of fans look forward to it all year. MITB has that aura of unpredictability about it that's not all that common in today's world. The ability to challenge for the title anywhere and at anytime, no matter the circumstances, is interesting because fans never truly know when the MITB briefcase holder will cash in.

As to which ultimately means more to the WWE in terms of sheer money, the Royal Rumble takes that easily. The Rumble is a tradition in WWE that really signals the sort of unofficial start to WrestleMania season. The winner of the Rumble always helps to set up one of the, sometimes the single, biggest matches on the WM card. Personally, I also think one reason the Royal Rumble is around is because it's still a big draw for WWE. It's usually WWE's second biggest drawing ppv of the year and it's averaged in the mid 400,000s in terms of ppv buys the past several years. It outdraws the WWE's average B ppvs by more than 2 to 1, so it's certainly not going anywhere anytime soon. The Royal Rumble and the winner of it facing a champ at WM is a tradition that draws big money for WWE and, at the end of the day, money is what it's all about.

 

[HBsam31]

Ask me a few years ago and I would have said the rumble hands down. Like jack hammer said the Ruble is where the money is at. It is pretty much the start of the Wrestlemania season. The winner of the Rumble goes on to face a champion at Mania, but lately it has been a bit watered down with the winner sometimes getting his shot in the opening match. It is still a huge deal, but it has seemed to have taken a bit of a backseat to the streak, and the WWE title match if the winner chooses to go after the World title. MITB has the unpredictability factor and except for Cena has a 100 percent success rate. All that said I still don't think MITB is on the level of the prestige of winning the Royal Rumble. Winning that puts you in the upper echelon of talent, and assures you a spot in the biggest PPV of the year.

 

[j2dlyc]

MITB is great for a midcard chicken shit heel character. If thats not your gimmick than its pointless to win because it will make you look like a weak fluky champion.

Daniel Bryan? Kane? EDGE? Hardly chicken shit midcard heel characters. Edge is a hall of famer, Kane is a guaranteed hall of fame entry when he retires, and Daniel Bryan was a total face when he cashed in. I love the money in the bank concept, not only does it produce incredibly entertaining matches, but it adds a layer of uncertainty to the title reigns, as the holder can cash in literally whenever they fancy.

 

[Dagger Dias]

In recent years Money In the Bank has been more beneficial to a wrestler's future than the Royal Rumble. Let's take a look at the stats of each.


Royal Rumble
1988 - Jim Duggan
1989 - Big John Studd
1990 - Hulk Hogan
1991 - Hulk Hogan
1992 - Ric Flair (won the title as a result of winning the Rumble)
1993 - Yokozuna (won title at Wrestlemania 9)
1994 - Bret Hart & Lex Luger (Hart won title at Wrestlemania 10)
1995 - Shawn Michaels
1996 - Shawn Michaels (won title at Wrestlemania 12)
1997 - Steve Austin
1998 - Steve Austin (won title at Wrestlemania 14)
1999 - Vince McMahon
2000 - The Rock
2001 - Steve Austin (won title at Wrestlemania 17)
2002 - Triple H (won title at Wrestlemania 18)
2003 - Brock Lesnar (won title at Wrestlemania 19)
2004 - Chris Benoit (won title at Wrestlemania 20)
2005 - Batista (won title at Wrestlemania 21)
2006 - Rey (won title at Wrestlemania 22)
2007 - Undertaker (won title at Wrestlemania 23)
2008 - Cena
2009 - Orton
2010 - Edge
2011 - Del Rio
2012 - Sheamus (won title at Wrestlemania 28)

13 out of 26 (50%) Royal Rumble match winners have won a World Championship as a direct result of their winning the Royal Rumble match.

If you look at it only including the winners who won after the Wrestlemania title shots began, you end up with 12 out of 21 (57%) Royal Rumble match winners have won a World Championship as a direct result of their winning the Royal Rumble match when a Wrestlemania title shot was on the line.


Money In the Bank
2005 - Edge cashes in and wins
2006 - RVD cashes in and wins
2007 - Kennedy wins but loses briefcase to Edge later
2007 - Edge cashes in and wins
2008 - CM Punk cashes in and wins
2009 - CM Punk cashes in and wins
2010 - Jack Swagger cashes in and wins
2010 - Kane cashes in and wins
2010 - The Miz cashes in and wins
2011 - Alberto Del Rio cashes in and wins
2011 - Daniel Bryan cashes in and wins
2012 - John Cena cashes in but loses
2012 (or 2013) - Dolph Ziggler has yet to cash in.

10 out of 12 (83%) Money In the Bank winners have won a World Championship as a direct result of their winning the Money In the Bank briefcase.


Even if Dolph Ziggler loses his eventual cash-in attempt, the stats would be 10 out of 13 at 77%. This number is higher than the stats for the Royal Rumble. The Rumble might have more history to it and an argument of prestige given the Wrestlemania title shots but when it comes down to it the Royal Rumble has not been as beneficial toward helping a wrestler win a World Championship as Money In the Bank has. Only two people have ever won a MITB briefcase have not gone on to win a world title. It's currently got the better odds out of the two to help a wrestler win a world title given the percentage of winners of each who have gone on to win a world title or not.

 

[Mongoose McQueen]

Well, to be frank, when you consider that who ever wins the Royal Rumble, means you will be in at least one of the main events at Wrestlemania. So it's not as if it can be argued, MITB means you have 12 months to cash it in. Yes MITB worked wonders for stars such as Danial Bryan, Edge and maybe even Ziggler when he cashes in.

It all depends on the position of the winner of the rumble at the time. If it's a raw star, then it means more, but if its a smackdown star, it means less. Raw is the A show and smackdown is the B show. There is no contest here, although it still means more than MITB in general. Over the years, some huge names have won the royal rumble and gone on to still lose at Wrestlemania.

Examples can be Edge (2010), John Cena (2008), Alberto Del Rio (2011) and even Randy Orton in 2009. But only one has unsuccessfully cashed in his briefcase, that one star being John Cena. I also believe that The Undertakers streak has become bigger than who ever wins the royal rumble, but also what other matches occur at the event. John Cena vs The Rock being a prime example, of over shadowing who ever won.

Pretty much since about 2008, its meant less and less over the years. More stars have come out from winning MITB as I said above.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Pretty much since about 2008, its meant less and less over the years. More stars have come out from winning MITB as I said above.

What stars? Jack Swagger, Alberto Del Rio, Miz? All are glorified mid-carders.

Whereas Royal Rumble created stars like Batista, Sheamus (even Rey Mysterio).

Money in the Bank only made Edge a star...all others are still mid-carders. Winning Money in the Bank was a big deal when there was only 1 Money in the Bank match.

 

[edgehead113]

The Royal Rumble is my favorite match of the year, but I liked the MITB concept better because it was a way for someone who wan't a roid-pumping behemoth to realistically win. When Rey Mysterio won the RR it was one of the alltime "wrestling is fake" moments of my life. I obviously know it's fake, but c'mon, at least TRY

A guy like Daniel Bryan would make the RR seem ridiculous if he won, but he's obviously one of the best in the business today, so MITB was a great way to help him become a top star without insulting the fans. MITB also offered an opportunity to build up the budding stars slower so as to get upper midcarders over (I love what they're doing with Ziggler, his buildup is taking forever like Edge's after the first MITB and fans keep begging for a cash in- that's how it should be- fans want him to cash in ASAP, so he's going to be OVER once he does win the Title.

MITB was GREAT when there was only one briefcase, and it would have been even better if they only had one winner in 2010, 2011, and 2012.

In 2010 Kane deserved MITB because he never gets Title runs but is an amazingly unselfish worker who has accomplished just about everything (and I also like that he has won MITB and Taker hasn't- Taker's one one the best ever, but Kane deserved to accomplish almost as much as he did). Kane (who was in the match) should have won it at WM that year instead of Swagger. If Swagger never won it he could have been built up better and maybe developed like Ziggler from mid-carder to main eventer. Also, Kane wouldn't have won it at MITB (which I'm fine with keeping as its own PPV as long as there's one briefcase and it's the main event) and at MITB the Miz could have won it and gone on to his successes.

In 2011, Del Rio never should have won MITB, he had many chances to be a top heel and failed. Daniel Bryan was perfect for MITB and should have been the sole winner.

In 2012, Cena shouldn't have won MITB- He could have just won a battle royale or something to face Punk at Raw1000. Ziggler is great for MITB and should have been the sole winner.

MITB would be great if there was one winner who could cash in on either champion. It would also add prestige to the MITB match because there are plenty of candidates people want to see (Wade Barrett, Cody Rhodes, Damien Sandow, etc.) but only one of them could win it next year.

 

[Jerichoholic8894]

Royal Rumble easily. It's hard to buy into someone's first title win (Usually the case with MITB winners besides CM Punk and Cena) if they cash in after a Last Man Standing type of match.

Plus the RR winner has more of a build than a MITB because you never know when they will cash in. Ziggler is the only person that I know of besides RVD to have a build to it.

I know MITB is more likely to win the title, but Royal Rumble has more importance and historical prestige to a career IMO

 

[#MrScissorsKick]

Hands down. The Royal Rumble. History and tradition on winning the Royal Rumble provides a wrestler with a big boost on the main event scene. Not only that but you get to headline Wrestlemania. Now, let me ask this. Who doesn't want to headline Wrestlemania? Anyways, Both have their cases to benefitting their careers. With winning the Royal Rumble, you get a big boost to your name as one of the winners who has out lasted 30 (or more) wrestlers to get a title shot at the biggest sports entertainment Pay Per View. Now with winning the MITB, you have a huge advantage because you also get a title shot when you cash it in, but it's up to 1 calendar year. So no one will know when you will recieve your title except for you. There is too much history for someone to win the Royal Rumble to not add some prestige to their career. MITB is a cool achievement and all but it's a ladder match not over the top rope elimination match. I think both are going to add some prestige to whoever wins, but in my opinion i think the Royal Rumble will make your career have a bigger highlight.

 

[Mr. HD]

The Money in the Bank has taken mid-card superstars and turned them into Main Event superstars. Look at what Money in the Bank did for guys like Edge, The Miz, and Daniel Bryan. Something that The Rumble probably wouldn't have done.

The Royal Rumble has certainly lost its luster the last few years. Winning the Rumble isn't that BIG moment anymore. Because the winner goes onto to .....be the FIRST match on the WrestleMania card. Sheamus won the Rumble last week and had an 18 second World Title match to begin the show.

As celebrated as The Rumble's history is, the last few years, Money in the Bank has been more beneficial.

 

[barclayteo]

I will start of by saying royal rumble is the biggest. When mitb first started out it was huge. At every wrestlemania you had 1 match that gave mid card hopefulls you hoped to make a name for themselves.

That was big when it first came out but over the recent years the mitb has been seriously degraded in my eyes. Not only has money in the bank gotten his own ppv, but they have spilt it into 2 cases.

So they took mitb from the biggest ppv out of the year, to place it in a spot that probably makes it the 6th biggest ppv out of the year. So pretty much you took the 7 midcard wrestlers from having the chance of getting their wrestlemania moment to just a regular ppv match, which they then have to share with 7 other wrestlers in another match.

I am not completely trashing the mitb, I just think they took it from being another reason to buy wrestlemaina tickets, or on ppv. To just waiting till a wrestling site has the results.

Royal rumble is still the big name ppv imo. If a wrestler manages to win that ppv then they share the privilage of being among the legends before them that have won. But like the mitb the royal rumble has been watered down over the past few years.

It used to be that if you won you would automatically get the main event spot at wrestlemania. But now you will most likely get in the first match under a divas match, and no disrespect to Shaemus.

But his last wrestlemania showing, against daniel bryan in my eyes tarnished the intergrety of winning the royal rumble. This is more to the people in the back. But you make wrestlemaina buyers who spent thousands of dollars to attend sit through a 17 second match, that came from Shaemus winning the royal rumble. It is 1 thing to end a regular ppv match in 17 seconds, but to end the wrestlemania match, that came from the resulitng win of royal rumble not only hurt that wrestlemania, but the rumble to.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

Its very arguable and it depends on too many factors...

Rumble gives you oportunity to headline Wrestlemania(unarguably biggest wrestling event in the World) but last three of winners didn't really headlined anything(Edge didnt headline against Jericho, Del Rio didn't headline against Edge and Sheamus had a squash match with DB that really gotten more over Danyel than him).

MiTB gives you oportunity to the title which almost everybody cashes in(except Cena, kudos to WWE for that on RAW 1000 ). Trouble is, in todays time title doesn't mean too much. If you look at past winners of MiTB, almost nobody didn't get much from the title he won. Edge and RVD did gain something but lets go man-to-man on these:

- Punk won it twice, has gotten him almost nothing and got more over by only one promo
- Swagger cashed in and won it and now he is nowhere to be found...
- Kane was pretty established superstar before it so it just added couple of storylines to him(though it was really nice to see Kane with the title )
- Miz cashed in, headlined Wrestlemania later but he is(arguably) just a midcarder now.
- Del Rio cashed in and he still hasn't gone anywhere and cannot go over with his gimmick(and its such an easy gimmick to hate)
- Bryan cashed in and gotten more over by losing it.

So, you see, it's really just an oportunity for uneastablished(in most cases) wrestlers to be someone. Wheather you will be, depends on you and booking. Good oportunity but rarely who got over with it and if you ask me, MiTB is just a good start for some wretlers and nothing more. Ruble was different before and was oportunity for more established to win it and headline Mania but over a few years ago, became just as same tool as MiTB.

Arguably, winning RR looks more better in resume(kind of means more to headline Wrestlemania then to parade with briefcase and then be champion noody even remembers), but wheather you go over with it depends on you and lots of other stuff(booking for example)...

 

[Aquaman6686]

Ever since the Royal Rumble winner stopped getting his title shot in the main event of WrestleMania, it has meant nothing. 2007 was the beginning of the end of the Royal Rumble. Money in the Bank means FAR more now.