The Better Elevator?

[Dagger Dias]

How many ppv's did Swagger main event as champion? The answer is zero. If you take the term "main event" and just use it for every world champion then you are taking away from the meaning.

When you are holding a world title.... You are a main eventer. That might not be the case after you lose it, but when the brand's top title is being held by someone, they are main eventing due to the title being the top prize. No matter how much you dislike Swagger, he was the top guy of Smackdown.

Swagger main evented ZERO ppv's, he had ZERO major feuds

That is a booking issue. Swagger, like many other Smackdown champions, took a backseat to Raw's angles. Cena VS Batista was currently going on. That was more important to WWE at the time. His only actual feud was with Big Show. That was the only feud he got other than a match against Orton or the triple threat with Jericho and Edge. He did not get a chance, and that's not Swagger's fault, it's the booking team's fault.

he had ZERO success with his title reign.

Swagger will be able to say for the rest of his life that he is a former World Champion. Sounds like success to me.

Before he won the title no one saw him as a main event guy.

Exactly. That's why MITB elevated him to the main event. It got him his first world title and no one saw him as a main event level guy. He has the potential to return there at some point thanks to that.

While he had the title he did absolutely nothing with it and his reign certainly didn't scream main event.

He defended it successfully against Edge, Jericho, Orton and Big Show.

Even if I were to concede and say he was a main eventer for those few months that still doesn't mean MITB did a good job at propelling him to that level. All MITB did was get him a cheap way to win the title and be a flash in the pan. That may be an elevator but it's a horrible one considering he hasn't sniffed the main event scene since then.

Again, that's the booking team's fault. He's a former World Champion. The Rumble wins keep leading to losses, how is that a better elevator when the guys LOSE rather than WIN A WORLD TITLE?

In terms of staying power I'll take a Wrestlemania title match loss over a cheap victory from a tired and downed opponent. MITB is the quicker elevator but it sure as hell isn't the better elevator.

Tell that to Edge, Miz, or CM Punk. Bryan is going to be cashing in at Wrestlemania and does not want to do it against a weakened champion. The WWE is aware of this issue and are going to use that to make a huge angle. MITB itself will be elevated, and it is the better elevator because it produces world champions. The Rumble no longer does that. It's a way to bring people back for bigger returns now instead.

Edge was already an established main event guy and him going to Smackdown was going to happen regardless. MITB may have sped up the process but in terms of his main event status it meant nothing.

MITB gave him his first world title. It gave birth to his Ultimate Opportunist gimmick. Edge going to Smackdown might have been inevitable somewhere down the line, but MITB is what led to him becoming the face of Smackdown.

CM Punk winning the title the second time led to a short reign that was almost as bad as the first. MITB again led to him getting to the main event quick but it didn't give him any staying power. He didn't get that until he beat Jeff Hardy straight up in a TLC match for his third reign.

You're missing the point. MITB cash in #2 for Punk was to set up the Hardy feud, which was one of the feuds of the year. This then in turn gave him the staying power to remain a main event level guy. He would not be where he is today without MITB. Neither would Edge or Miz.

Kane was on and off in the main event for over a decade, he did not need MITB for anything. He was given random title shots probably once a year and he could have easily gotten the title that way instead. MITB was just a convenient way to do it. The feud with Taker is what made him relevant again.

Kane and Taker have had multiple feuds together. The addition of the title helped add to the relevance. If they did that angle without the title then it wouldn't have seemed as important. Kane got the title through MITB whether you like it or not. You claimed I was merely speculating in my previous post, well you saying Kane could have easily gotten the title during his one or two title matches per year is the exact same type of speculation.

And how many of those winners have won the world title in a straight up fashion? The answer is one. Everyone else picked up a cheap victory that was a quick fix and not a way to permanently keep them in the main event. Outside of Edge and CM Punk, none of the MITB winners have won a world title since their MITB cash in. RVD, Swagger, Kane, and Miz all have failed to win the world title since they won it with their cash ins.

RVD did in TNA. Swagger, Kane, and Miz can all claim they are former world champions, and it is thanks to MITB. Whether they failed in title matches later on, the fact of the matter is that they are still former world champions. Did they get these world titles through the Royal Rumble? Nope, they got it by cashing in the MITB cases.

Edge wasn't credible in the main event until his feud with Cena was in full force.

Guess what started that feud? Edge cashed in MITB.

CM Punk wasn't credible until he beat Jeff Hardy in a straight up fashion.

A feud that was based around the fact that Punk cashed in MITB on Hardy.

Swagger still isn't credible.

He's more credible than he was before he won MITB.

Miz was only credible once he started winning on ppvs.

He was a midcard nobody before he cashed in MITB.

Winning the MITB and cashing it in cheaply doesn't make you a credible main event guy. Winning the Rumble and having a world title match at Mania does.

No. Winning a world title makes you a main eventer. Winning the rumble and losing a world title match does not.

Starting with 1993 there is not one winner of the Rumble (outside Vinnie Mac) that you would say is not a credible main eventer. Shit most of the winners are current or future hall of famers and all time greats like Austin, HBK, Hart, Rock, Triple H, Cena, Orton, Taker. That legacy is a lot better then being in a group with Edge, Punk, Kane, RVD, Swagger, Miz, etc..

Lex Luger and Rey Mysterio are the only ones that come close. The Rumble has been around MUCH longer than MITB has. Its list is going to have better names on it. However we are not discussing which match has a better looking list of names. MITB has yet to have someone fail at winning a world title. Several Royal Rumble winners have failed to win a world title.

The question isn't about about breaking into the main event quickly. It's about being elevated there and part of elevation means actually staying elevated. Pretty much every Rumble winner not only got elevated to the main event but they had staying power. The same can't be said about MITB.

The question is "Which do you think is the better, more efficient way to elevate a new star to main event status?". What better way to get someone into the main event than to have them win a world title? After all, the whole point of being a wrestler is to one day become a world champion. MITB produces that every single time, and the Rumble has not in nearly the entire time that MITB has been around.

This statement I believe everyone will find to be true: The best way to make a guy a main eventer is to have him be built up and then beat a credible champion in a credible fashion. That is exactly what the Rumble does and not at all what MITB does. Therefore it is easy to conclude that the better elevator is the Rumble.

Look at the part in bold. The Rumble winners ever since 2007 have LOST at Wrestlemania. The Rumble does not elevate someone to main event status when they LOSE their Wrestlemania match. They are already trying to have a MITB winner defeat a champion in credible fashion with Bryan. The Rumble has not elevated someone since 2006 with Rey. Taker was already an established main eventer. So were Cena, Orton, and Edge. Del Rio LOST at Wrestlemania in the OPENING match. He WON his first WORLD TITLE as a result of cashing in MITB. Oddly enough, The Rumble has not elevated someone ever since MITB winners began winning world titles. Coincidence? I think not. MITB is the better elevator because it picked up on crowning world champions where the Rumble left off and has been ever since it was created.

 

[Big Sexy]

When you are holding a world title.... You are a main eventer. That might not be the case after you lose it, but when the brand's top title is being held by someone, they are main eventing due to the title being the top prize. No matter how much you dislike Swagger, he was the top guy of Smackdown.

I guess Vince McMahon was a main eventer back when he won the title too. And Dolph Ziggler for the week or so he had the belt.

That is a booking issue. Swagger, like many other Smackdown champions, took a backseat to Raw's angles. Cena VS Batista was currently going on. That was more important to WWE at the time. His only actual feud was with Big Show. That was the only feud he got other than a match against Orton or the triple threat with Jericho and Edge. He did not get a chance, and that's not Swagger's fault, it's the booking team's fault.

Swagger was booked like shit because he was a shit champion. Don't blame the people who made him champion in the first place for his awful reign.

Swagger will be able to say for the rest of his life that he is a former World Champion. Sounds like success to me.

My definition of success in the industry is someone who not only made the main event but actually made an impact and was seen as credible. Swagger is not that.

Exactly. That's why MITB elevated him to the main event. It got him his first world title and no one saw him as a main event level guy. He has the potential to return there at some point thanks to that.

But winning the rumble and having him be in a title match at Mania would have been a better elevator to the main event.

He defended it successfully against Edge, Jericho, Orton and Big Show.

A lucky triple threat victory and a dq loss to retain the title don't impress me. The Extreme Rules win over Orton was a good start but Orton was no where near what he is now at that point and that was the only semi-highlight of the reign. Clean losses to John Morrison negate the victory over Orton.

Again, that's the booking team's fault. He's a former World Champion. The Rumble wins keep leading to losses, how is that a better elevator when the guys LOSE rather than WIN A WORLD TITLE?

Because a valiant loss at Mania is a better way to make a guy credible then a cheap victory on Smackdown. Once again it's not about making it to the main event, it's about making it and looking credible.

Tell that to Edge, Miz, or CM Punk. Bryan is going to be cashing in at Wrestlemania and does not want to do it against a weakened champion. The WWE is aware of this issue and are going to use that to make a huge angle. MITB itself will be elevated, and it is the better elevator because it produces world champions. The Rumble no longer does that. It's a way to bring people back for bigger returns now instead.

MITB wasn't what made CM Punk a credible main event guy. Beating Jeff Hardy straight up for his third title and the months following that did. MITB just rushed Punk to the main event which is why his first two reigns were short and lackluster. MITB has some success stories but it doesn't elevate guys better then the Rumble.

I'm skipping a chunk of your post because it's just you making the same argument as you have above and there's no reason for me to repeat the same rebuttal over and over again that many times.

The question is "Which do you think is the better, more efficient way to elevate a new star to main event status?". What better way to get someone into the main event than to have them win a world title? After all, the whole point of being a wrestler is to one day become a world champion. MITB produces that every single time, and the Rumble has not in nearly the entire time that MITB has been around.

Being in the main event just isn't about a flash in the pan title win. It's about having staying power and credibility. The Rumble does that a lot better then MITB.

Look at the part in bold. The Rumble winners ever since 2007 have LOST at Wrestlemania. The Rumble does not elevate someone to main event status when they LOSE their Wrestlemania match.

Cena, Orton, and Edge were already firmly established main event guys. They were the three who won in 08, 09, and 10. They didn't need elevation so the fact they lost is irrelevant. Del Rio did lose at Mania but the Rumble win made him credible. MITB finally got him the title but he was already elevated because of the Rumble.

They are already trying to have a MITB winner defeat a champion in credible fashion with Bryan.

Wrestlemania is a longgggg time away and we have no clue where the Bryan story line will end up.

The Rumble has not elevated someone since 2006 with Rey. Taker was already an established main eventer. So were Cena, Orton, and Edge. Del Rio LOST at Wrestlemania in the OPENING match. He WON his first WORLD TITLE as a result of cashing in MITB. Oddly enough, The Rumble has not elevated someone ever since MITB winners began winning world titles. Coincidence? I think not. MITB is the better elevator because it picked up on crowning world champions where the Rumble left off and has been ever since it was created.

The Rumble certainly elevated Del Rio. You don't have to be champion to be elevated. All you've said over and over again is that the MITB is better because it crowns champions. To that I say bullshit. The Rumble is more prestigious, harder to win, and it gives guys instant credibility as a real main eventer by giving them a Mania title shot. That's much better then an unearned title victory.

 

[TempestH]

The MiTB is a better main eventer.

While the Rumble itself is more prestigious, the Royal Rumble winner is usually an established main eventer.

The only reason that Alberto Del Rio won the 2011 Royal Rumble was because the Miz/Cena/Rock program was already THE main event of Wrestlemania.

Because we already have Cena vs. The Rock at WM28 as THE main event, as well as Daniel Bryan's declaration of facing the World Heavyweight Champion at Wrestlemania, I do believe that a midcarder will get a push by winning the 2012 Royal Rumble and go on to face the WWE Champion