The Better Elevator?

[S.J. Maximus]

Today in the WWE there are two main ways to elevate a midcard talent into the main event: The Royal Rumble and Money in the Bank. The point of this thread is to find out which way you think is the better way to elevate guys into this position. You'll probably have your answer just by reading this paragraph but just in case I'll include some background info for each event.

The Royal Rumble - (1992- ) Although the first Royal Rumble was in 1988, 1992 was the first time the Rumble had something to do with the WWF Championship. Ric Flair won that year to win the vacated title and since then, the winner of the Royal Rumble has been guaranteed a shot in the main event of WrestleMania for the title. Many midcard guys and top guys have won the Rumble and almost of the winners have retained their top guy status regardless of the result of their WM match. The biggest beneficiaries of the Royal Rumble are Shawn Michaels, Stone Cold Steve Austin, and Batista. People like Edge, John Cena, and Rock won the RR when they were already top stars so it didn't help them the way it helped HBK SCSA and Batista.

Pros
- There are 30 people in the Rumble as opposed to just 6 or 8, giving more options and more possible outcomes

- It's not biased for heels or faces, although many faces have won, heels win too and it doesn't affect their personality

- Since it's 2 months away from WrestleMania, that time is usually used to build the winner as a legitimate threat to the champion

- You get a solid picture of what the main event could be all the way in January

- Even losers look strong, such as Kane in 2001 when he eliminated 11 guys, or Triple H when he lasted an hour in 2006

- There's a second, third, and fourth place (obviously there's 30 places) so the runner ups are almost simultaneously pushed as runner ups while the winner is pushed as the winner (i.e. HHH in both 08 & and 09, HBK in 07, Cena in 05)

Cons
- It's an old and outdated concept

- It's a very long match to have to sit through and watch

- The rules are always evolving to explain faulty storylines (such as the 2-feet rule to help out HBK in 95 or the allowing of outside interference to eliminate HBK in 06)

- Since 2003, winners aren't even guaranteed the main event spot anymore, and in 2011 the RR winner Alberto Del Rio wrestled in the WM opener

- The rumble only guarantees a push, not a title reign, not superstardom, or anything besides a push for at least 2-3 months

Money in the Bank - (2005- ) Chris Jericho introduced this concept on his highlight reel and it was first used at WrestleMania 21, where Edge won the briefcase and became the first example of the benefits of this revolutionary concept. Basically, 6 men (now 8) compete for the opportunity to cash in a title match at any time they choose, reminiscent of the 24/7 rule that was put on the Hardcore title in 2001. So far, every winner has cashed in their briefcase to win the title so we treat the winners as future champions. The biggest beneficiaries of this match are Edge, Miz and CM Punk while they've had some duds like Jack Swagger and Mr. Kennedy.

Pros
-The (arguably) most popular match in wrestling is used as a way to elevate talent, which gives audiences 2 amazing reasons to be interested in this match.

- The rules are simple, it's a very easy match to explain to a casual fan and get them interested in the product

- Big spots and classic moments are created every time this match happens

- The winner is almost guaranteed a title reign

-The time period after MiTB is won is always exciting because the winner always teases his cash-in several times before the real one

Cons
-Cashing in the MiTB on a weak champion is a heel tactic, therefore face winners are rare and the face winners usually spoil the excitement by announcing the cash-in date (such as RVD in 06 and Daniel Bryan now)

- No one from this match comes out strong but the winner, unlike the RR

- Dangerous match

- Now there's two of them in one night, so it takes away the value of the whole concept (imagine if there was a RAW royal rumble then an SD one?! The whole thing would suck)



So given all of this information, which do you think is the better, more efficient way to elevate a new star to main event status?

 

[S.J. Maximus]

My pick goes to Royal Rumble because I think winning a match against 29 other guys puts you over more than taking advantage of a weak champion. I'd also say that MitB is kind of bullshit and I'd hate it if I was the champ. In the RR, there's nothing cheap about the situation: someone wins the Rumble, and he has 2 months to prepare before having the challenge of a lifetime on the grandest stage of them all. MitB is better for stats (it guarantees a title reign) but it definitely isn't better for the credibility of a star or for the 'childhood dream' moment of a title win. I know Edge, Miz, and CM Punk probably reminisce about their first World title win and think about how special it was, but do you think it compares to the wins of HBK, Austin, and Batista? These men got their first title reigns in a competitive singles match against the biggest star in the WWE at the time (Bret, HBK, and Triple H respectively), thus making them the biggest stars in the WWE after WM (until Batista got hurt). So all in all, I'd say the Royal Rumble is the better elevator

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

I have to pick the Royal Rumble.. By winning the Rumble you get yourself a title shot at Wrestlemania.. A win also makes you look more credible as a champion than does the Money In The Bank cash in, because you don't just beat up an already exhausted superstar.. Finally the Rumble includes 39 other participants (formelly 29) and the odds are much higher than there are in the Money In The Bank match.

 

[SD619]

My pick will have to be Royal Rumble. It is by far the more prestigious of the two and also guarantees a title shot at WrestleMania and that too in an actual match.

MiTB winners(except RVD) just come and pin an already beaten champion and this takes away some sheen from their victory.

 

[Paralyzer Z]

Royal rumble hands down.

Like you said both heels and faces could win not being biased. Plus it grants guys spots at wrestlemania the biggest stage of em all! Money in the bank just almost guarantees the winner a title shot. All guys from the final 3 or so in the rumble usually look stronger afterwards.

Del Rio is one of the few exceptions of this though.

 

[WrestleLAD]

Got to be Royal Rumble! When you think of the past winners instant hall of famers appear in your head e.g Stone Cold, HBK, Flair, Hogan, Bret Hart not to mention Triple H, John Cena, The Undertaker, Edge & Randy Orton who like it or not WILL be in it one day. When winning the rumble you joining an elite list of superstars who beat 29 other guys to win that match! With MITB you only face 5 other guys and because your only facing people from your brand they have to fill them places with people who probably shouldn't be in it AKA Heath Slater, Justin Gabriel & Sin Cara!

 

[Big Sexy]

It's easily the Rumble. The Rumble has the history behind it, it is the more prestigious of the two matches, and there is only one per year where with MITB there is now two (one for each brand). The Rumble also has the better track record. The Rumble winner received the World Title in 1992 and since 1993 the Rumble winner has become the number one contender for the World Title at Wrestlemania. In all of that time the only instance where the winner hasn't been a WWE success as a main event guy is in 1999 when Vince McMahon won it and that was a special case.

Not every Rumble winner (since the title shot concept came into play in 1993) has gone on to win the title at Wrestlemania but they still end up becoming successful main event guys. MITB so far has meant a guaranteed title run (excluding Kennedy who lost the briefcase) but that doesn't automatically translate to a guy being a successful main event player. Jack Swagger won the match but had an awful run as champion and is now stuck in the mid card. Like I said earlier, Kennedy won the match but ended up losing his briefcase and he never became a success as a main event guy.

There's also the fact that the Rumble means a straight up World Title match at Wrestlemania. Even if it isn't the official main event anymore, having a world title match at Mania is still a huge deal no matter where it is on the card. With MITB, all of the cash ins outside of RVD's came against beaten up champions. That is by no means an impressive way to get into the main event and be seen as legitimate. Four of the nine MITB cash ins haven't even happened on a ppv. This really isn't even a contest, the Rumble is easily the better elevator.

 

[MooseDaddy]

I voted Money in the Bank and here is why.

I agree that RR has a lot more prestige and history and in the past has been used to elevate people. However in recent years, up until this year, the winner hasn't been someone surprising. It has always been someone who is already a main eventer. Whereas the MITB is usually Upper Mid Card guys trying to get a chance at the Title. Yes how they cash in generally comes accross as a touch heelish, but the match and the push that the character gets after that is a lot bigger. No one thought Daniel Bryan was going to win the RR and surprise surprise he didn't. So that is why I vote for MITB. The match is generally more fun to wash and it is almost always a new player getting pushed.

 

[Big Sexy]

I voted Money in the Bank and here is why.

I agree that RR has a lot more prestige and history and in the past has been used to elevate people. However in recent years, up until this year, the winner hasn't been someone surprising. It has always been someone who is already a main eventer. Whereas the MITB is usually Upper Mid Card guys trying to get a chance at the Title. Yes how they cash in generally comes accross as a touch heelish, but the match and the push that the character gets after that is a lot bigger. No one thought Daniel Bryan was going to win the RR and surprise surprise he didn't. So that is why I vote for MITB. The match is generally more fun to wash and it is almost always a new player getting pushed.

The thread isn't asking which match type has done a better job recently of elevating mid carders, it's asking which match is a better way of doing it. Basically if you were a mid card wrestler and you had the choice of either winning the Rumble or winning MITB to elevate yourself, which would you choose. MITB is nice for a quick rise to the main event scene but the Rumble is better if you want to build yourself as a consistent main event guy for years to come.

 

[martymcfly]

The thread isn't asking which match type has done a better job recently of elevating mid carders, it's asking which match is a better way of doing it. Basically if you were a mid card wrestler and you had the choice of either winning the Rumble or winning MITB to elevate yourself, which would you choose. MITB is nice for a quick rise to the main event scene but the Rumble is better if you want to build yourself as a consistent main event guy for years to come.

It is possible that is what was meant, but I read it a little differently. the original question was: So given all of this information, which do you think is the better, more efficient way to elevate a new star to main event status?

Like MooseDaddy, I would have to say MITB. On average, it seems that the MITB winner is someone new to the main event scene. Granted, once they win the title and lose it, they may not stay in the main event scene, but it is a quick way to elevate someone into the main event picture who is not usually there.

On the other hand, the royal rumble winner (which granted, is more prestigious than MITB) is usually someone already in the main event scene. The winners rarely go outside "the usual suspects", so it doesn't really shake anything up or give someone something they didn't already have.

 

[RkoMachine]

The sad thing about it is lately the better of the 2 has been Money in The Bank! Look at Delrio! He won the biggest rumble in history and OPENED wrestlemania and lost! He wins mitb and soon after hes champ!

 

[THE AWESOME MIZFIT]

Hands down the royal rumble. It is one of the biggest matches of the year and it involves all of the best talent. Winning that I believe is more prestigious because of the fact that you beat 29 other of WWE's best superstars. Not only that but you are guaranteed a main event slot as the biggest stage of them all WrestleMania. The winner also has the option to choose which brand he exclusively wrestles for and which title he goes after. Wrestling at WrestleMania is everyone's dream but wrestling in the main event for the WWE/World Heavyweight Championship at the biggest stage of them all. Nothing is better then that. It also gives more credibility because most MITB winners cash in on a downed or vulnerable star but if You win the RR you are given a bigger opportunity.

 

[Big Sexy]

On the other hand, the royal rumble winner (which granted, is more prestigious than MITB) is usually someone already in the main event scene. The winners rarely go outside "the usual suspects", so it doesn't really shake anything up or give someone something they didn't already have.

Not necessarily. Since 1993 when the winner started to get the Mania title shot there have been 19 Rumbles. I'm going to exclude Vinne Mac's win for obvious reasons but because there were co winners in 1994 that is still 19 winners. Some are repeat winners but that's irrelevant to the point I'm about to make. Of those 19 wins, 10 of them were from guys who had yet to win a World Title in the WWE.

Basically slightly more then 50% of the time, someone is winning and going to Wrestlemania to try and win their first title. They don't always win it but it's a hell of a lot better way to build someone up then having them come out and pin a guy who just finished a match or just got his ass kicked.

MITB may be good for a quick push but just because a guy wins a World Title doesn't mean he should be labeled as a main event talent for the rest of his career. Once the Rumble actually started meaning something in 1992, you can look down the list of all the winners excluding Vince and see that all of those guys are superstars you would consider as main event level talents. You can't do that with MITB.

 

[Justin Satiable]

The Royal Rumble is a more surefire way of propelling a talent to the main event. All the MITB contract seems to do is make champions out of midcarders, who will eventually slip from the main event into the upper midcard. Not that there's anything wrong than that, but the Royal Rumble (usually) allows for the talent to hit the main event and stay there for a longer duration than just their title reign, as the problem is with MITB.

 

[remyx]

The WWE should make a point to mention that over previous years that the winner of the rumble hasn't exactly been as successful as they have been in the past. And that despite Del Rio winning the largest rumble this year he didn't even get to headline wrestlemania. The winner of the rumble SHOULD ALWAYS be in the last match at wrestlemania FOR the championship. ALWAYS!

 

[I_Am_Electro_Boy]

For me it's the Royal Rumble. If you win the Royal Rumble you're guaranteed to have a World Title match at the grandest stage of them all. Another factor is that the Royal Rumble is far more prestigious, many legends such as Stone Cold, The Rock, Triple H, Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair etc have won the match. Also there's only one Royal Rumble match a year whereas there's two MITB matches a year and before when it was at WM it wasn't the main event.

 

[hollowpoint]

I was kinda confused by the pros and cons list because it seemed as it was in the eye of the viewer versus the actual Superstar. I voted for the Royal Rumble for reasons that seem simple for me, but im sure others will disagree. The Royal Rumble doesn't elevate new talent, but it more solidifies your upper mid card, main event level talent. If you look at the list of everyone who has ever won the rumble, ADR is the only one that was unknown or unexpected. One thing the rumble is also good for is the performances within the match (see Kane).
Another reason I picked the RR is simply due to prestige and history. I can't recall the exact number that there have been, but I think it's somewhere around 25 or so. Everyone of the winners of this event either becomes a mainstay in the mainevent scene or becomes the top dog in the company. HHH did it, The Rock, SCSA, HBK, the list goes on and on. The MITB winners are more of a flash in the pan and even though they eventually win a world title, few of them amount to much as a result of the victory. CM Punk had 2 MITB victories and 2 World Championship reigns, but does anyone remember them?

 

[Dagger Dias]

Money In the Bank is the better way to elevate someone to main event status. The Royal Rumble used to be a good elevator, but lately it has turned into a way for main eventers to return to set up their Wrestlemania storylines. Plus, it has not led to a world title win since Undertaker in 2007, or Rey in 2006 if you wish to disregard Taker due to his streak. MITB, however, is the better elevator of the two because it has ALWAYS produced new champions. Let's take a look:

Edge cashed in Wrestlemania 21's MITB case on Cena to get his first world title reign. This turned him into a main eventer. RVD cashed his Wrestlemania 22 MITB case in to win successfully in 2006. Edge won Kennedy's MITB case in 2007 after Wrestlemania 23, cashed in on Taker and became a permanenent part of the world title scene afterwards. Punk gave Edge a taste of his own medicine in 2008 by cashing in the MITB case from Wrestlemania 24. He completed his rise to the top with a heel turn alongside cashing in his second MITB case from Wrestlemania 25 on Jeff Hardy in 2009. Swagger got his world title reign after cashing in Wrestlemania 26's MITB case on Jericho in 2010. Kane returned to the main event scene after cashing in Smackdown's first MITB case on Rey and it gave him one of his best pushes yet. Miz went from a midcard nobody to retaining against Cena at Wrestlemania after having cashed in Raw's first MITB case. Del Rio won his first world title after cashing in on CM Punk a month ago. Daniel Bryan is getting a huge push with his MITB case.

You can't argue with a history like that for the MITB concept after only 6 years. It has completely replaced former concepts like King of the Ring and even the Royal Rumble as the best way for a midcarder to break into the main event. Sure, Swagger and RVD were less memorable but they still won titles. How many world title wins has the Royal Rumble victory led to? So far the MITB concept has been a success with every single winner. Kennedy never cashed it in, so even 2007's was successful with Edge.

 

[keehlnate]

I believe it goes like this:

The Royal Rumble is for the faces. Just like how Chris Benoit and Rey Mysterio won their first world titles. They gain the highest level of respect by winning the rumble, main-eventing wrestlemania and winning the championship.

The MITB is for the heels. Perfect examples are The Miz and Alberto del Rio, winning their first world titles by cashing-in. They gain the cheapest way to win a world title really fit for heels.

 

[Big Sexy]

Edge cashed in Wrestlemania 21's MITB case on Cena to get his first world title reign. This turned him into a main eventer. RVD cashed his Wrestlemania 22 MITB case in to win successfully in 2006. Edge won Kennedy's MITB case in 2007 after Wrestlemania 23, cashed in on Taker and became a permanenent part of the world title scene afterwards. Punk gave Edge a taste of his own medicine in 2008 by cashing in the MITB case from Wrestlemania 24. He completed his rise to the top with a heel turn alongside cashing in his second MITB case from Wrestlemania 25 on Jeff Hardy in 2009. Swagger got his world title reign after cashing in Wrestlemania 26's MITB case on Jericho in 2010. Kane returned to the main event scene after cashing in Smackdown's first MITB case on Rey and it gave him one of his best pushes yet. Miz went from a midcard nobody to retaining against Cena at Wrestlemania after having cashed in Raw's first MITB case. Del Rio won his first world title after cashing in on CM Punk a month ago. Daniel Bryan is getting a huge push with his MITB case.

Swagger may have been champion but you're blind if you thought he was a main eventer. He had one of the worst reigns ever. Del Rio was already a Rumble winner and a guy who had a world title match at Wrestlemania so MITB was just an addition to his accolades. Edge and CM Punk getting a briefcase for a second time did nothing for them because it was just a repeat of something they had already accomplished. Kennedy got jack shit out of winning it because he obviously lost the briefcase. Kane was already an on and off main event guy for over a decade. The jury is still out on Daniel Bryan.

How many world title wins has the Royal Rumble victory led to?

The Rumble started being for the number one contender at Mania in 1993. That's 19 Rumbles and we'll say 19 winners (excluding Vinnie Mac but adding both winners in 1994). Of those 19, 11 of them have gone on to win the title at Wrestlemania and 6 of those 11 were winning the title for the first time.

Basically if you want to give a high mid carder or an already established main event guy a random title reign with usually no build then you have him win MITB. If you want a new main event guy to actually have staying power in the main event or an already established guy have a credible feud, then you have him win the Rumble.

Fighting for a World Title, win or lose, at Wrestlemania is a lot more impressive then cashing in a briefcase on a downed opponent to get a title reign.

 

[Wade's Public Transit Bomb]

I think it depends on how long you want to look back at each match.


The Royal Rumble is one of the few PPVs that don't need no stinkin' build to be a success. Why? Because the rumble itself gets the bill as the most exciting match all year. However, I think in recent years it hasn't been a really good stepping stone for people. But I don't think you should blame that on the match. A lot of newer talent in recent years haven't really been home runs, touchdowns, [insert favorite sport score name here]. Sucks for the old guys who have to work longer because of this fact, but the truth usually sucks.


I do think the grand allure of the Money in the Bank is over. But it has also had its fair share of success (regardless of how I think of the guys ) with Edge, Punk, and Miz. Granted you get those morons (RVD, Kennedy), but considering it hasn't been around that long and three main eventers have that in their record is pretty good I think. However, you have to think about how bad Swaggie bombed, how people think DB is just going to lose the damn suitcase, and that people still doesn't think Del Rio is 'there' yet.


Overall, I would say the Rumble. If the winner does go on to better and bigger things, people will remember it. With MiTB, it is such a huge gamble because, let's be frank, not everyone should be headlining even a Superstars show. Let alone a show that someone might actually watch.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Swagger may have been champion but you're blind if you thought he was a main eventer. He had one of the worst reigns ever.

If you are holding the world title, then you are a main eventer. Simple Wrestling 101 there. Whether you liked Swagger's reign or not, he was a main eventer in the summer of 2010. The fact that he had a bad reign is not Swagger's fault. The people who booked him are to blame. Had he been booked better, he would likely be a 2 time World Champion by now, and still main eventing.

Del Rio was already a Rumble winner and a guy who had a world title match at Wrestlemania so MITB was just an addition to his accolades.

Del Rio was going to be World Champion but plans kept changing. Edge had to retire and he deserved to go over in his last match. Then there was the ladder match, which he also was meant to win, but they moved him over to Raw so Christian could take Edge's spot, meaning Del Rio had to lose again. The MITB victory was just a way to insert him back into the title scene so he can get his win that got delayed. Sure enough, it worked.

His Royal Rumble win led to him LOSING at Wrestlemania in the OPENING MATCH. The MITB victory led to a WWE Championship reign. The better elevator in Del Rio's case? The little red briefcase was better.

Edge and CM Punk getting a briefcase for a second time did nothing for them because it was just a repeat of something they had already accomplished.

Nothing? Edge was going nowhere on Raw when Cena had his year-long title reign. Edge got his shot and lost. His tag team with Orton disbanded. Orton, Lashley, Michaels, and others were all ahead of him in line. The second MITB cash in led to Edge becoming the face of Smackdown. Sounds pretty significant to me. As for Punk? His second cash-in led to his much needed heel-turn and it made him a main eventer, whereas his first cash-in and reign felt like he wasn't ready to main event yet.

Kennedy got jack shit out of winning it because he obviously lost the briefcase.

Had Kennedy not been suspended he would have been part of an epic angle where he was Vince's son who blew up his limo, cashed in at Wrestlemania and ended the title reign of Cena/Orton or whoever would be champion at that time. They had BIG plans for him but he screwed up. The MITB case was going to break him into the main event. Instead it turned Edge into the face of Smackdown, so it was still successful that year.

Kane was already an on and off main event guy for over a decade.

No he wasn't. He was a jobber to the stars. MITB got him the best push of his career, and a world title reign he likely never would have gotten otherwise. It made Kane relevant again.

The jury is still out on Daniel Bryan.

This is true, but I see big things for Bryan. Kennedy didn't get to cash in at Wrestlemania, Bryan will and he will win in what will likely end up the defining moment of his career. Only time will tell.

The Rumble started being for the number one contender at Mania in 1993. That's 19 Rumbles and we'll say 19 winners (excluding Vinnie Mac but adding both winners in 1994). Of those 19, 11 of them have gone on to win the title at Wrestlemania and 6 of those 11 were winning the title for the first time.

10 people have won Money In the Bank. 9 world champions have been won as a result. Bryan will be the 10th if he wins. 5 of those 10 were the first world title reign for the superstar that cashed in, and Bryan will be the 6th if he wins as well. 58% of the Rumble winners have gone on to win at Wrestlemania, whereas 90% of the MITB winners have successfully won a world title. Can't argue with those stats.

Basically if you want to give a high mid carder or an already established main event guy a random title reign with usually no build then you have him win MITB. If you want a new main event guy to actually have staying power in the main event or an already established guy have a credible feud, then you have him win the Rumble.

Tell that to Edge in 2005, CM Punk in 2008, Del Rio a month ago, as well as Swagger and Miz in 2010. These guys all won their first world title through MITB. Losing the world title match after winning the Royal Rumble takes away from its prestige. MITB on the other hand, continues to gain prestige every day.

Fighting for a World Title, win or lose, at Wrestlemania is a lot more impressive then cashing in a briefcase on a downed opponent to get a title reign.

No it isn't. When it comes down to it, the MITB winners WON. Royal Rumble winners have lost every year since 2007 when Taker faced Batista. Taker always wins though, so let's go back even further to 2006 when Rey won. That's 5 years of people losing at Wrestlemania, making the Rumble not seem important anymore. MITB on the other hand has produced world champions ever since 2005. The Rumble may have history on its side, but MITB is catching up to it fast because it has completely taken over as the best way to break into the main event.

 

[kieransuarez7]

Hmmmm its tough, i would say MITB is more for midcarders where as you have gotta be pretty over and strong to win a RR, i think they took a chance with ADR last year and i didnt think it was believable for him to win it withing his first 6 months. I think if Miz had won the Rumble last year, people would of been Livid because he was no where near that level. The Rumble is the most prestigious match in Wrestling so i think the winners should be pretty big already (Punk this year). I love the MITB concept cos its so exciting when done right (Miz, Edge) and you can never really say "he isnt over or good enough to win the MITB" because thats the main reason. So for that my vote goes for MITB

 

[Wade's Public Transit Bomb]

If you are holding the world title, then you are a main eventer. Simple Wrestling 101 there. Whether you liked Swagger's reign or not, he was a main eventer in the summer of 2010. The fact that he had a bad reign is not Swagger's fault. The people who booked him are to blame. Had he been booked better, he would likely be a 2 time World Champion by now, and still main eventing.

Umm.. If a person can't present themselves to match the push, then how is it the writing's fault? When someone finally gets that main event push, they better act like they are for fucking real so the crowd will get into them. The guy had some matches with some pretty high profile guys (Orton, Big Show, Taker, and Rey) while having segments that showed a lighter side of them.. Before you mention that he 'wasn't booked seriously' he won most of those matches and most WWE main eventers have had their fair share of goofy ass segments. You can't blame that on creative when Swaggie didn't perform at the level they wanted. It might have something to do with him almost killing Rey one of their matches. idk

Del Rio hasn't looked like a commodity in the past few weeks either. Are you going to blame creative for that when he has been given BOTH 'elevators' mentioned in this thread?

That is why the MiTB is so risky because it is really hard to tell who is going to be a bomb or not. At least with the Rumble, wins that don't lead to much fade away relatively quick.

 

[Big Sexy]

If you are holding the world title, then you are a main eventer. Simple Wrestling 101 there. Whether you liked Swagger's reign or not, he was a main eventer in the summer of 2010. The fact that he had a bad reign is not Swagger's fault. The people who booked him are to blame. Had he been booked better, he would likely be a 2 time World Champion by now, and still main eventing.

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. Swagger main evented ZERO ppv's, he had ZERO major feuds, and he had ZERO success with his title reign. Before he won the title no one saw him as a main event guy. While he had the title he did absolutely nothing with it and his reign certainly didn't scream main event. Once he lost the title, no one saw him as a main event guy.

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. With the Rumble, nothing like that has ever happened where a guy just became a flash in the pan main eventer for a few months and then went back to always being a mid carder.

Del Rio was going to be World Champion but plans kept changing. Edge had to retire and he deserved to go over in his last match. Then there was the ladder match, which he also was meant to win, but they moved him over to Raw so Christian could take Edge's spot, meaning Del Rio had to lose again. The MITB victory was just a way to insert him back into the title scene so he can get his win that got delayed. Sure enough, it worked.

You're proving my point. It's all speculation from you but the Rumble was the original way they were going to completely elevate him but unforeseen circumstances caused that to change. MITB merely became a back up plan and a quick way to get him the title.

His Royal Rumble win led to him LOSING at Wrestlemania in the OPENING MATCH. The MITB victory led to a WWE Championship reign. The better elevator in Del Rio's case? The little red briefcase was better.

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.

Nothing? Edge was going nowhere on Raw when Cena had his year-long title reign. Edge got his shot and lost. His tag team with Orton disbanded. Orton, Lashley, Michaels, and others were all ahead of him in line. The second MITB cash in led to Edge becoming the face of Smackdown. Sounds pretty significant to me. As for Punk? His second cash-in led to his much needed heel-turn and it made him a main eventer, whereas his first cash-in and reign felt like he wasn't ready to main event yet.

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. 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.

Had Kennedy not been suspended he would have been part of an epic angle where he was Vince's son who blew up his limo, cashed in at Wrestlemania and ended the title reign of Cena/Orton or whoever would be champion at that time. They had BIG plans for him but he screwed up. The MITB case was going to break him into the main event. Instead it turned Edge into the face of Smackdown, so it was still successful that year.

Pure speculation about Kennedy.

No he wasn't. He was a jobber to the stars. MITB got him the best push of his career, and a world title reign he likely never would have gotten otherwise. It made Kane relevant again.

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.

This is true, but I see big things for Bryan. Kennedy didn't get to cash in at Wrestlemania, Bryan will and he will win in what will likely end up the defining moment of his career. Only time will tell.

More speculation

10 people have won Money In the Bank. 9 world champions have been won as a result. Bryan will be the 10th if he wins. 5 of those 10 were the first world title reign for the superstar that cashed in, and Bryan will be the 6th if he wins as well. 58% of the Rumble winners have gone on to win at Wrestlemania, whereas 90% of the MITB winners have successfully won a world title. Can't argue with those stats.

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.

Tell that to Edge in 2005, CM Punk in 2008, Del Rio a month ago, as well as Swagger and Miz in 2010. These guys all won their first world title through MITB. Losing the world title match after winning the Royal Rumble takes away from its prestige. MITB on the other hand, continues to gain prestige every day.

Edge wasn't credible in the main event until his feud with Cena was in full force. CM Punk wasn't credible until he beat Jeff Hardy in a straight up fashion. Swagger still isn't credible. Miz was only credible once he started winning on ppvs. 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. 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..

No it isn't. When it comes down to it, the MITB winners WON. Royal Rumble winners have lost every year since 2007 when Taker faced Batista. Taker always wins though, so let's go back even further to 2006 when Rey won. That's 5 years of people losing at Wrestlemania, making the Rumble not seem important anymore. MITB on the other hand has produced world champions ever since 2005. The Rumble may have history on its side, but MITB is catching up to it fast because it has completely taken over as the best way to break into the main event.

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.

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.