The Not-So Royal Rumble

[S.J. Maximus]

The Royal Rumble is probably the most anticipated match of the year each year and I love how they always count the ways that the Rumble is fun. The match was huge because the winner is guaranteed a main event spot at WrestleMania and for a long time it was the only tangible precursor to a World Title reign (now the MITB is also one).

Before Edge won in 2010 they talked about how 70% of the winners of the last decade have gone on to win, but for next year when we start the Road to WrestleMania 28 we'll be in the midst of a drought, the last 4 Rumble winners lost at WrestleMania. I really thought Del Rio was destined to win but no, they made him lose for no reason, so is the Rumble losing its aura? I think it's nice to have them lose every once in a while to avoid predictability but never before have 2 consecutive winners lost their title shot, let alone 4.

Is the Rumble proving meaningless? Or am I just making a mountain out of a molehill and will next year's winner finally end the Rumble drought?

 

[deforty]

I think you looking to deep into it, but they might also use that as part of next years build up to WM also with someone like punk or swagger winning the rumble. I could also see them saying they will break the rumble winners curse of losing and go on to win WM, but actually lose. I can see this going for a couple of Rumbles then eventually someone will put an end to it. It will add something else to WM with a little more payoff than say HHH/Taker or Cena winning every WM match he has been in, I don't count last night, but I do see a very angry Cena tonight calling out the Rock.

 

[SteveNJ]

You bring up good points. I just believe they are inter-changing the story lines so drastically. They swapped the Orton/Miz feud at Rumble. And same with Punk/Cena.

I just think its not losing anything..just the creative team thinks fans enjoy huge build ups and lame finishes.

 

[marklouis]

It seems like the Money in the Bank has taken some of the luster from the Rumble. Has any MITB winner not won the title? I know Mr. Kennedy lost the briefcase to Edge, but Edge went on to win the title. I don't think winning the Rumble means less, because it is a great accomplishment just to win that match-also shows that the company has confidence in you going forward. I think next year's winner should win one of the titles at Wrestlemania. I'd love to see it be CM Punk, as I think he's due to win the Rumble.

 

[xcoN]

I thought this past years R.R. was good for the fact that it had 40 men instead of 30. I like how they built up Del Rio too. Someone new and fresh won instead of the same guy. Seeing him lose last night to Edge wasn't as bad as I thought. He would have been the new Sheamus; rushed to the main event too quickly. I see him being built up even better now and hopefully will continue to feud with Christian more. I don't feel that the R.R. was pointless at all since it helped create and make Del Rio seem credible as a wrestler and as a top heel.

 

[VABurghman]

The thing that has taken away from the Royal Rumble the most, and Wrestlemania, is the Monthly Pay Per View. Back a long time ago the only PPV's where Wrestlemania and Royal Rumble. They had true meaning. But WWE has a Monthly PPV now AND the regular TV shows may as well just be PPV's as well. The match makeup is virtually the same.

Again, back in the day for WCW it was Starrcade and The Great American Bash. The beauty of the Bash was that it was a summer long event. Not just one PPV.

So, WWE PPV's don't compare the the old days and they are watered down from their own Monthly PPV's....then you have additional watering down from TNA monthly PPV's as well. Lets face it. Admit it or not, the average wrestling fan watches both shows to some degree.

 

[Trance Metaphor]

Of course the Royal Rumble isn't meaningless. It's the biggest match of the year. Winning this match is an accomplishment of its own without having to have ties to a WrestleMania World title shot. I like how they're kind of breaking the predictable tradition that if a wrestler wins the Royal Rumble, he'll automatically be booked to win at WrestleMania. Albert Del Rio is full of charisma and great in the ring, but there's no need to rush him at this time. He should score a few more victories over big names, before winning the World title. It would benefit him as an established star and not a onetime wonder.

 

[Aotearoa (Bushwacker)]

I still feel that the Rumble winner, whether they win or lose at mania still has more credibility than the MITB winner. Yes it is still a major accomplishment to win the MITB match but then they win the championship in such cheap fashion. I think the MITB win should entitle the winner to challenge at any upcoming PPV but not cash it in for some cheap win. RVD did it right and it was awesome. The rumble winner gets a good build and looks credible going into mania and you never quite know which way it will go. I don't think this makes the Rumble meaningless.
The MITB win is still a massive win cause they have to beat like 8 other guys in a ladder match. Thats pretty full on and only the best can win it and they prove themselves. What annoys me somewhat is that they always tout the rumble winner as beating 30 other guys but they dont actually beat 30 other guys, they personally only beat a few guys.
So to answer your question, I think NO the Rumble is not meaningless and still one of the only PPV's I'll buy.

 

[xcoN]

The MITB concept could have been much better if they haven't made it into a gimmick PPV in which 2 people get a chance to win a contract. It would have been better to keep the ladder match at 'mania and only have one NEW guy win it. Doesn't mean you gotta cash it in right away but still. R.R. is definitely more credible than MITB though.

 

[Skairipa Matrix]

i think your making to much out of this and as far as last night goes...i was very happy to see del rio lose to edge because i honestly see nothing good about del rio! he can talk on the mic but thats it he has no ring skill IMO because all he does is non stop attacking the arm then kicking someone in the face in corner....BORING! like last night all del rio kept doing was going for the cross armbreaker.....doesnt it make more sense to build up to using your finisher instead of just non stop going for it? i hope this means Christian will FINALLY get a whw title fued id love to see christian and edge fued....send del rio back to the mid card let him fued with kofi or rey and give him a ic title run before even thinking about letting him go for the whw title again

 

[Jack-Hammer]

While I would have preferred Del Rio to win as I'm just a big fan of the guy, I think it's nice that the WWE switched things up a little bit this year.

The IWC is well known for it's constant complaints and criticisms about anything and everything so, of course, the predictability of the Royal Rumble winner going on to with the big one at WrestleMania is a topic I've seen brought up in a pretty decent sized number of threads over the past couple of years. They say that they want to be surprised, that they want to see things changed up but look at the reaction when/if the WWE does just that. If anything, the complaints and criticisms increase.

People say that they want longer title reigns, so they get them but still the complaints. They want the Royal Rumble winner to have a less predictable outcome for his WM title match and, when it happens, the complaints still spring up. Every now and then, a thread will pop up regarding MITB at how it's become kind of predictable in just the same way as the RR winner has. But I guarantee you, I guaran-fucking-tee you, the first guy to catch in an MITB briefcase and lose will cause an uproar in the IWC. They'll scream "he deserves better than this!!!" or "the WWE has fucked up!!!!" or "he has too much talent to be buried!!!!" along with any number of the usual whining you'll hear.

As far as the Royal Rumble itself goes, it suffers from the same problem that wrestling itself suffers when it comes to net fans. Instead of actually trying to enjoy the program, instead of actually wanting to be entertained, they want to analyze and critique every single thing that goes on. And if whatever does go on doesn't meet with what they believe should happen, then here come even more complaints.

The Royal Rumble is doing just fine in my opinion. It delivers what it's supposed to in providing a fun match and can serve as a career boost to guys. Del Rio might not have won the title at WM last night, but you can't tell me that being the RR winner didn't do and hasn't done big things for his career.

 

[Decarow]

The MITB concept could have been much better if they haven't made it into a gimmick PPV in which 2 people get a chance to win a contract. It would have been better to keep the ladder match at 'mania and only have one NEW guy win it. Doesn't mean you gotta cash it in right away but still. R.R. is definitely more credible than MITB though.

Everybody who has won the MITB, excluding Miz, Swagger, and Punk's first win, had been in the main event.

Edge, RVD, Kane, Punk (2nd time), and Kennedy had all been proven. Only until recently was it made for "new talent".

On to the concept of the RR. I was just thinking the same thing the other day. But they went like 7 years in a row with the winner winning at WM, it's a good change in pace. I don't think it makes the RR look bad. It sends the winner to the "main event" (or in this year's case, the opener) of the Grandest Stage of Them All.

 

[Cena's #1 Fan]

I don't see a big problem. Cena losing was cool because it was a change of pace and Orton was building his super heel persona.

Orton lost next year to HHH, but we all knew that was going to happen. Heaven forbid triple H put over some one besides batista or cena( i'm surprised he did that.) He buried Sheamus for no reason and poor fortunate son.

Edge- that was just to give jericho a successful title defense at mania because he on the way out the door and wwe knew it.

Del Rio- probably the same as the edge reason. edge never had a successful title defense or won a hw title at mania and he is close to retirement so he'll probably give the rub to del rio somewhere down the road. del rio wasn't buried. he just wasn't ready.

ppl need to get over that just because you win the rumble doens't mean you have to win at mania. it should be the same way with mitb. its simply the element of surprise. anyway, i think the crowd loved edge winning and miz winning. i bet there would have been alot more ppl pisssed if del rio and cena had won. i know i would have, no disrespect adr, i like him. i'm just so anit-cena it's almost ridiculous. to the miz for his successful retainment.

 

[blockanWo]

I think this years Wrestlemania really put the Royal Rumble in a dull light. In the past the Royal Rumble winner was something to be proud of, you had the main event, you were a star going onto the top prize.

Having your Royal Rumble winner lose in the opening match of Wrestlemania, it...was just weird. I dont see Del Rio anywhere near the top prize now.

 

[tyler.durden]

To me, winning the rumble means nothing if you don't win the title at WM. It's just a means to an end. Those that were never champions, like Lawler or Piper, would never say "Boy, if only I had won a Royal Rumble"... So yeah, I've been disappointed about that for the last couple years. I think the WWE should put emphasis on Rumble winners than MITB winners.

And I know the WWE is trying to be unpredictable, but that isn't always a good thing. If we want to see it happen, then give it to us! Surprises should be left to heel turns or debuts...

 

[ITALIAN NYC]

I think the royal rumble is deff losing its steam. Having it open up at wrestlemania effected it alot in my opinion.

The WWE has the elimination PPV the next month which gives guys ANOTHER chance to get the title or be the number 1 contender. I dont like how they have this PPV placed. The rumble should be the last chance to main event mania.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

How about eliminating the Money in the Bank PPV and having a money in the bank match at a different PPV each year. Then give away another MITB case to the winner of the Rumble.

Then, you can have the two winners of the elimination chamber matches become #1 contenders for the respective titles and have them go on to Mania with the threat of the guy who won the Rumble, able to cash in the case at Mania.

 

[fredstephenson]

to be honest as much as i enjoy watching the rumble i think its been quite meaningless for a while now just because before it meant you had a guaranteed place in the main event at mania and win or lose it should make you into a star but its not clear what the main event is now there are two world titles also the match involving undertaker has pretty much been the main event a couple of times for instance del rio or whatever his name is won it this year and should have been in the last match of the night for the title but i havnt heard neone even mention his match at mania all ive heard abowt is john cena the miz undertaker and hhh

 

[Mac Attack]

The Royal Rumble has been and always will be very important. Just because there is a small streak with losers doesn't take way from the general prestige of the Rumble. The award of winning the Rumble is to get in a main event at Wrestlemania, which has ALWAYS been the case. The percentage which was mentioned in the OP isn't that drastically dropped because of one more loss. Just because the winners of the Rumble aren't winning the title doesn't make them any less important or make the PPV any less important. If anything it adds to unpredictabilty of the Mania match because now we have the doubt on whether or not they will actually win the title. I think now with the 40 man rumble (if it stays like that) it also adds more prestige because in theory you bested 39 other men, some of which are mega stars. Just because you lose the actual title match hasn't nothing to do with the prestige of the Rumble, if anything it reflects how the Creative team is allowing for change. Personally I find this as good change because they are making sure that in the back of our heads we think the Rumble winner can lose.

Here's a hypothetical question. If Santino had ended up winning the Rumble would you still make this thread about Rumble winners considering people expect him to lose?

 

[Reddog1146]

I do not really have a problem with it, it adds more susoense to the title matches at WM. if everyone won the title, except once in a while, then no one would even watch the match because they would be almost certain on who would win. this "losing streak" makes you think "will he win the title and end the curse?"

 

[Cena's #1 Fan]

And I know the WWE is trying to be unpredictable, but that isn't always a good thing. If we want to see it happen, then give it to us! Surprises should be left to heel turns or debuts...[/QUOTE]



yeah, okay. so every winner needs to win the title at mania? every mitb winner? that's boring.

I bet everybody and their mom want to see john cena being super cena and main eventing every damn mania and winning the title at ALMOST every one of them. Give me a damn break about if we want to see it happen give it to us.


I wanna see undertaker tombstone cena's ass at mania like 400 times and i bet i'm not the only one. I doubt wwe will give that to us. Why? Cause cena doesn't wanna "job" or get "buried" by the deadman.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

The night of the Royal Rumble, it's still a huge deal. Cena returning in 2008 was huge. Orton winning in 2009 was expected, but it was a big deal. Edge returning in 2010 was pretty huge. Del Rio winning didn't feel like a big deal, but it was the first time in quite a while where a new guy won the match.

However, at Mania, Rumble winners haven't been a huge deal, as of late. The Rumble is a huge deal, and only once over the last 6 Rumble matches has the winner actually closed the show at Mania (Orton in 2009).

Prior to Rey Mysterio winning in 2006, Rumble winners would close the show, and if they didn't, there would be a HUGE storyline as to why they didn't. Flair won the title at the '92 Rumble, HBK and Diesel were bumped for Lawrence Taylor at WM 11, Steve Austin didn't actually win the Rumble in '97, and McMahon screwed Austin in '99. Each time, prior to Mysterio, there were big, big reasons why the official winner didn't move on to close Mania.

The title shot at Mania is still big, but when you're not closing the show, that takes away from the win, no question.

 

[Linubidix..]

I think the WWE lost a little faith in the Royal Rumble or lost faith in the power of it's prestige back in 2006. The Royal Rumble event was closed with Mark Henry vs. Kurt Angle. This match went on AFTER the rumble match itself. Rey Mysterio won it that year and got his title shot at WrestleMania and it was the first time in a long time that the Rumble winner hadn't closed the show at WrestleMania. The following two WrestleManias did the same. Since 2006, only ONE Royal Rumble winner has been in the final match of WrestleMania, which was Randy Orton at 25. And since 2006 only two Rumble winners have one their respective title match at WrestleMania, which were Mysterio at 22 and Undertaker at 23.