Should The Royal Rumble be for the WWE Title?

[LSN80]

By logic, the Royal Rumble match is the hardest match to win of any match within the WWE at this time. So it stands to wonder, why shouldn't it be for the richest prize in the industry from time to time?

It's not without precedent, as twenty years ago, the 1992 Royal Rumble match was for the WWF Title. The final PPV of 1991, Tuesday in Texas, saw Hulk Hogan win the WWF title from the Undertaker, but in controversial fashion. As a result, Hogan was stripped of the title, and the Royal Rumble was contested for the first and only time to date for the WWF title, which was won by Ric Flair.

Personally, I like this storyline. This isn't something I'd like to see happen on a yearly basis, but I truly believe this could work if done every five years or so. Under no circumstances should the WWE or WHC have to defend the title within the Rumble, which is why an effective storyline injury(or legitimate) could work. When the WWE wanted to end CM Punk's first title reign without making him look weak, they did so via storyline injury. When he returned, he was given a one-on-one title match, with the current champion going over. This allows the champion who is stripped to not look weak, creates an immediate contender for the Rumble winner, and gives the Rumble winner momentum should they defeat the former champion. If the champion is forced to vacate the title in between TLC and the Royal Rumble, there's a ready-made build for the Rumble right there, and it creates further intrigue. WWE's selling point over the past several years has been simply "The Rumble itself", while failing to create intrigue beyond the excitement the Rumble itself brings. What better way to create more intrigue in the Rumble using this scenario?

I believe this would also help the build towards Wrestlemania. Instead of having the winner simply guaranteed a title shot, they potentially can walk into Wrestlemania with the title. It allows for consistency as well, as both chamber matches can be No.1 Contender Matches. It allows for a longer build toward Wrestlemania, especially if it's a younger star WWE is trying to make. As we've seen over the past four years, the Rumble hasn't guaranteed the winner the Championship. John Cena, Randy Orton, Edge, and Alberto Del Rio respectively have lost their championship match, rendering their Rumble win little more then a notch on their resume. Shouldn't the winner of the Rumble, the hardest match in WWE, be rewarded with something more? That something, from time to time, should be the WWE title.

Should the Royal Rumble match, on occasion, be for the WWE title? What potential positives and negatives are there?

 

[Davi323]

Personally, I like this storyline. This isn't something I'd like to see happen on a yearly basis, but I truly believe this could work if done every five years or so. Under no circumstances should the WWE or WHC have to defend the title within the Rumble, which is why an effective storyline injury(or legitimate) could work. If the champion is forced to vacate the title in between TLC and the Royal Rumble, there's a ready-made build for the Rumble right there, and it creates further intrigue. WWE's selling point over the past several years has been simply "The Rumble itself", while failing to create intrigue beyond the excitement the Rumble itself brings.

Agreed, as long as it fits within this limitation...No reigning champions should have to defend against 29 other wrestlers. That's just ridiculous, even if you guarantee that they get the #30 spot automatically. That kind of match is inherently designed to strip the champion.

However, like you said, if the title is vacated for some reason ahead of time, due to a legitimate injury to the champion or even for kayfabe storyline purposes, then the Royal Rumble would be a fantastic way to put the belt on someone, especially if it's going to go to a midcarder you want to elevate, so that the Rumble win could be seen as a bit of a shocker, or another #1 entrant going the distance...you could have Orton, Cena or HHH win, the standard predictable results, but if you really wanted to maximize it, it would be a great way to put the belt on someone new.

Unless you did it consistently, I really don't see any negatives to doing it. The only danger I can see is doing it every year, where the belt being on the line becomes routine.

The Royal Rumble as a PPV is easily my 2nd favorite PPV of the year, and the match itself is my all-time favorite match type, even without the title. Put a title on the line every now and then, and it would be amazing.

 

[johnnybbad78]

While I would love to see the Rumble be for the title, doing it every year, or even every 3 or 4, would mean that everyone knows whoever is champion at the end of the year is going to leave for awhile, or get stripped of the title. And that pretty much ruins their credibility as champion. I like the Rumble being for a title opportunity at Wrestlemania, because it gives the chance for a storyline to develop, especially when so many people cry about the lack of storylines.

 

[VinnieSunshine]

Should the Royal Rumble match, on occasion, be for the WWE title? What potential positives and negatives are there?

Here is a scenario that COULD work...

The winner of the Royal Rumble faces the winner of the WWE title or WHC matches.

Both title matches go on BEFORE the rumble, and then the winner gets to announce who they would like to take on. The champion, wether they retained or just won it, would have to come back out for ANOTHER title match.

That way we get 3 title matches on one PPV, which opens a new door for a championship storyline at WM.

Two things I can see wrong is that we are either setup for a rematch at Mania OR fans bitch because the title MAY switch hands twice in one night. Though the latter worked for Kane when he cashed in the MITB at Mania on Mysterio. The other thing being that we would have LESS matches on the card (which could also be a positive).

 

[rokuma]

Personally, I think a WWE Champion defending his title in the Rumble match COULD work, but only if a villain GM (ie John Laurinitis) wanted to stack the odds against the current champion (ie someone like CM Punk) and force him to defend it against 29 other men. It would also make Punk look tough if he survived all 29 men and kept his belt.

I said it COULD work...not that I wanted it to happen...

 

[j2dlyc]

The problem with this idea is that if it were for the title then it would be ridiculously predictable. You would instantly know that the last few men would all be big names and that the lesser ranked guys are just fodder. The same can be said for it is now but at least there is the chance that a up and comer can win it (ie cody rhodes or wade barrett), under the suggested stipulation it would be cena/punk/tripple h every single year

 

[DeathClutch]

I do apologize before I go into my reply, I haven't read all your post due to being a hurry.

The Royal Rumble for the WWE/World Championship should only be if storylines pretain to such a match, like in 1991 with Hogan/Undertaker and the 1992 Royal Rumble.

As a yearly feat hell no, it would be almost like guaranteeing a new champion, if WWE wanted to do such a match save it for SD or RAW for the more element of surprise.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if WWE did tweak the Rumble every now and again like last years 40 man Rumble to keep the concept fresh as it's gotten stale over the last few years (2008 being the last good rumble). So a championship being placed on the line in the rumble as a "one time only" I wouldn't count it out.

 

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

Definitely, we haven't had it for the title In quite some time. But I do disagree with a poster of above. While it may seem ridiculous to have the reigning champ go in defending it because of course the main purpose would be to strip him of it, but it can be made into an amazing storyline. A rebel (like cm punk) is forced by the corporate tool(Johny Ace) to defend his belt against 29 other men. I wouldn't have the champion be a guaranteed number thirty though, takes away the unpredictability. But anyway, yeah this should happen.

 

[¡Roján!]

Should the Royal Rumble match be for the WWE title?

The whole point of the Royal Rumble is the fact that it kickstarts the Road to Wrestlemania by obviously giving us the number one contender to a title. And, there's nothing I love more than that 3 month period between the Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania where you see the winner get ready for his match, perhaps by scouting his opponent and cutting promos on them. Plus, there's also the stigma of who the Royal Rumble winner is going to pick. If you look back at when the Undertaker appeared on ECW, Smackdown and RAW back in 2008 to taunt the three champions, it created a buzz. A buzz that stood with him (and every other winner) until Wrestlemania. Everyone suddenly gets interested in the winner more so than before. Simply put, the Royal Rumble is the best tool to get over there is.

Also, if the Royal Rumble were for the title, where would the number one contender come from? Wrestlemania isn't just another PPV, it needs to be special. Sure, out of the two title matches one of them is done the old-fashioned way, but 9 times out of 10, the more interesting match-up is the one with the Royal Rumble winner. Not to mention if the Royal Rumble match were for the title, how would you decide which one? What of the Royal Rumble card? There would only be two matches and the Royal Rumble. Is that enough?

At the end of the day, what's not broken, doesn't need fixing. I love the Royal Rumble concept and it's probably the best wrestling gimmick ever, in my opinion. I like the way it sets up the Road to Wrestlemania and I love watching what the winner does until then. So, no, I don't think it should be for the title. It might be interesting but, I don't see it working and being as unique as it is now.

 

[Headman]

Two questions... Why would it be fair to force a champion to defend the title against 29 men in an over the top rope match?

Unless of course the title is vacant which brings me to my next question. Why would the title be vacant every couple of years around the same time? If there was a storyline to make the title vacant around the Royal Rumble as sort of a once in a generation type situation I'd be all for it. The 1992 Royal Rumble was a very special Rumble in the minds of many fans so it would be cool to see it happen again, but it should only happen once. Maybe in 20 years they can do it again.

 

[avi01]

poor champions :O
Maybe IF one day the title is vacant they could do that but royal rumble is a tradition that should be kept. It is where the road to mania start. In fact if there is a change to be made, the winner of the rumble should be really be in the main event of mania..it has not always been the case recently. Del Rio won and was in the opener last year..it diminishes the prestige of winning the rumble imo.

 

[Headman]

poor champions :O
Maybe IF one day the title is vacant they could do that but royal rumble is a tradition that should be kept. It is where the road to mania start. In fact if there is a change to be made, the winner of the rumble should be really be in the main event of mania..it has not always been the case recently. Del Rio won and was in the opener last year..it diminishes the prestige of winning the rumble imo.

If they do this fans will complain because the outcome will be too predictable. Del Rio was never going to main event wrestlemania. If only guys who have a legit shot at ending the show were to win the Rumble we'd pretty much be able to narrow it down to about 3 or 4 guys. Winning the Rumble gets you a WM title match of your choice. That's good enough for me.

 

[supaman5279]

No...We are on the road to Wrestlemania and every step we make matters. I enjoy the ides of the current champions defending their titles against worth contenders because it gives upper card guys(wrestlers who will most likely end up on the Wrestlemania card anyway) a chance to showcase themselves 1v1(most of the time). Yes, the Royal Rumble is the hardest match to compete in and it's great to win, but main eventing Wrestlemania is even greater. WInning the Rumble gives you the right to wrestle for the championship, and its very exciting to watch 3 months of build-up to the big match.

 

[boozinjedi]

Personally, I think a WWE Champion defending his title in the Rumble match COULD work, but only if a villain GM (ie John Laurinitis) wanted to stack the odds against the current champion (ie someone like CM Punk) and force him to defend it against 29 other men. It would also make Punk look tough if he survived all 29 men and kept his belt.

I said it COULD work...not that I wanted it to happen...

Allow me to follow up on this line of thought.....

Say Punk loses the belt at the Rumble,Elimination Chamber wouldn't be for title...it would be for Wrestlemania title shot instead,Punk wins that and wins belt back at mania?

Granted only a sudden injury should make the rumble for the title,It would be nice to see every once in a while.

 

[bk555]

Interesting concept but I think that it should NOT be for the WWE title. The Royal Rumble is one of the few outstanding strengths the WWE has. It is a creative idea that kick starts the Road to Wrestlemania and it is ALWAYS interesting no matter what. I dont care what anyone says. The even usually sells very well and they have time to give all 30 superstars face time.

The strengths of your idea of making it for the WWE title are basically only the fact that it would be new. Wrestling fans always want something new so i guess it could work but i dont think so.

The weaknesses are that the Rumble is fine as it is and also it would be annoying to have the WWE championship in the mix with 30 superstars most of which dont even have a believable chance of winning the rumble.

 

[Skairipa Matrix]

i wouldnt mind this maybe once in awhile happening but i will always prefer the winner of the rumble getting a title shot at wrestlemania i do think they try to playoff the royal rumble as the hardest match all year to win...unless your 1 of the last 5 or 6 people to enter the match then apperently you have a huge advantage...would i mind wwe having the wwe (or world heavy weight) title on the line for the winner of the rumble match? no not at all if it wasnt over used
do i think it will happen? nope just cant see it with rumble being 1 of the big four ppv's they like to have 3 big matches with 2 of them being title matches

 

[THTRobtaylor]

You have to remember, that the road to 1992 was expressly designed around Hogan v Flair with Savage v Sid being the other match... it was only after the Rumble and Flair's win that plans changed... Flair's win was planned from the moment he signed and it was used as a way to establish him swiftly as being something unique and special as most WWE fans had no knowledge of his past other than the "real worlds champion" stuff...

For it to work that way today, it would need to be someones first title, or a total shock as to who wins it... if for example they were going to bring Lesnar back and put the belt on him right away or for it to be a Sting type...

 

[thebarber]

as a one off no problem, provided the storyline surrounding the WWE Championship was sufficeint. But as already stated, this would leave the match to be very predictable as only one or two guys at any time are over enough to be given the strap to carry. It worked in 1992, even though Flair taking out the gold was so familiar, but I believe it worked so well as this was the best way to get Ric Flair vs Hulk Hogan at Wrestlemania 8 without the pair having to fight on tv thus giving us the fresh and first fight at Wrestlemania. After Vince went in a 180 degree direction with both guys, the victory fell flat in my opinion. All gimmick matches need a shake up from time to time, Id hate to have to see the WWE Champion actually defend the title in the match, the belt WOULD HAVE TO BE VACANT at the time of the Rumble.

 

[Paralyzer Z]

The road to Wrestlemania is the grandest time (well usually) of the year for WWE. Whether it pays off at the big event, is another subject in itself the build up is almost always thrilling. Part of this can be attributed to the Royal Rumble match, it's like a passage of rights of some sort. You toss 29 other men over the top rope and then you have earned your spot at the big time. However what does the champion do? Should he have to do the same to go to Wrestlemania,? No, this is an example of "don't fix what isn't broken".

The Champion already has to face an equally challenging task, the Elimination Chamber match. To go to Wrestlemania at the current time in WWE, you have to win the the EC matches or the Royal Rumble. Giving the Rumble match the title stipulation would take away from what EC is already doing, giving the champion or other contenders a big way and believable passage to Wrestlemania. It's like Bragging rights and Survivor Series in the past, you have basically the same thing 2 months in a row. If this to give the WM title match more meaning, it would take that away from the Elimination chamber matches. Now essentially, they both turn out the same in the end, 2 competitors that worked very hard to get to Wrestlemania, being in the main event. However that tradition factor of the Rumble winner going to Wrestlemania gives it a bigger feel, that of the winner has made history and continues the legacy of past winners. You all remember marking out at the past winners from your childhood such as Hogan, Austin, Luger and Hart, you wanted them to win at WM after a long journey, and that is what the current Rumble protocol provides, at least for faces, the heel winners have something to brag about when one happens to be the victor.

 

[Casket34]

No...the rumble is my favorite ppv. This is because it sets up the next few months for some good stories and good hype...who wants to see some scum heel win the rumble and thats that, he is now WWE champion, no hype, no story...

 

[The Ultimate Heel]

The Royal Rumble was for the title at least once that I remember. I believe it was in 92 or 93 and Ric Flair won. And to me, it was one of the best if not the best Rumble of all time. However, back then I don't think that there were any other ppv's between the Rumble and 'Mania and it would have to be that way again for it to work now.

 

[thebromm]

This is aparently as stupid as my "Is WWE burying Zack Ryder?" thread. Why would the WWE periodically put the WWE title on the line in the Royal Rumble? Just idiotic to say the least. Unless the champion is legitamately injured in December/January there is NEVER a reason to put the belt on the line in a Royal Rumble match.

 

[LilShippy97_WWE]

This would work but not every year. It would have to be a one time thing. I could see someone getting injured thats champion so the title is on the line in the rumble match. I would love to see it.

 

[Defekt]

Should the Royal Rumble match, on occasion, be for the WWE title? What potential positives and negatives are there?

I think it's a great storyline turn, and since it's been 20 years since it last happened, I wouldn't mind seeing it again in the near future.

Every 5 years is too much tho. Storylines shouldn't be that predictable.

The Rumble is still my favorite WWE event, but the prize is less important than in the past since there are two world titles, and the winner is no longer guaranteed the main event. Throwing the title in the mix would give the match a shot in the arm.

 

[Dagger Dias]

The Royal Rumble should not be for the WWE Championship. This would potentially lead to some very controversial victories that make the event seem less important. What if someone had lasted from the first or second spot, only for the WWE Champion to walk in as the 30th entrant and retain his title? That would ruin the entire match. Unless they have someone last from the first couple of spots all the way through the entire match, I would be against it being a title match. I like it the way it is because it provides more unpredictability. The winner gets to decide which of the two championships he will challenge for, while Elimination Chamber determines who walks in with the belt. I felt that having the Rumble be a title match was a bad idea the time they did it that way and to try it again would be a mistake. WWE should not fix something that isn't broken.