What has the Royal Rumble become?

[Kidd]

The RR is my favorite PPV of the year. I usually look forward to it more than any other PPV with the exception of matbe WM.

My question is what has it come to mean nowadays? To me, it used to mean that an up-and-comer was gonna get a push. That's what always made it so exciting to me. Getting to see who the WWE was gonna hang their hat on for the upcoming future.

However, the MITB seems to have replaced the RR in that respect.

Now it seems that the RR is mainly for "surprise" returns. And 9 times outta 10, the returning Superstar wins the Rumble. This kinda ruins it for me when I have a good idea who's coming back. For example, most of us knew Edge would be back for the RR last year; therefore, we all pretty much knew who would win.

This year is no different. Most of us expect HHH to return and thus win the RR.

So my questions to you are:

What is the RR to you?

and

What do you think should be done to improve the RR?

If you like the RR the way it is, tell me why.

 

[Wrestling Free Thinker]

What is the RR to you?

A Pay Per View from WWE in late January every year.

And the only stars that have "returned" to win the rumble were Cena, Edge, and Triple H.

I'd like the rumble to go to someone who 1. hasn't won it before and 2. hasn't won a world title either.

I like the rumble the way it is. It's a nice simple PPV and has had good matches. What else is there to put? I don't want it over gimmicked for example.

 

[Optimist Prime]

The Royal Rumble never really started out as the push for the next up-and-comer though. "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan won the first one ever and was always basically comic relief. Big John Studd won and didn't do much. Hulk Hogan won the 1990 Royal Rumble already being World Champion and keeping his title. The very next year he won the Royal Rumble again...clearly already having established himself as the top guy in the business by this point. 1992 had the title on the line for I think the only time and Ric Flair won it who had already been a superstar. 1993 Royal Rumble could have been the dumbest one ever when Randy Savage tried to pin Yokozuna in the middle of the ring for no reason - thus getting thrown over the top rope and losing. I guess he could have been considered an "up-and-comer" but if you look at the rest of the guys in the RR from the Repo Man to The Berzerker - it was just riddled with nonsense. 1994 had Hart and Luger hit the ground at the same time - Hart already having held the World Title and Luger already having established himself as well.

My point being...the Royal Rumble has always jumped around in regards to what it's represented...which is one of the things I think that they have done quite well. If it literally represented one single thing (in your case - pushing the younger up-and-comer) you literally would know who was winning each and every time. It would be awful.

 

[tripleh42]

I think you may be talking about how the RR helped push guys like HBK, Austin, Benoit, and Batista to World Champ status......

kinda hard now a days when John Cena has won/defended the title 5 of the last 6 WMs....and when you throw HHH, Orton, Undertaker, Edge, (batista when he was there) and Jericho in the pack who all have a sh*t load of title runs...

once in a while a Shameus, a Swagger, a CM Punk, and now the Miz holds the belt for a brief period of time...but WM has seemed to have the same main eventers for the past 5 or 6 years with no sign of any up and comer really coming along to otherthrow Cena.

Its like when Savage and Warrior got the belt...who really gave a dam...we all knew Hogan was just gonna get it back at some point.

 

[123NewChamp]

I feel what you saying. Edge, John Cena, and Triple-H done all returned and won Royal Rumbles. But were in the age and time now where everything is becoming so repetitive. Royal Rumble used to be the Pay Per View of the Unexpected; cause you never know who was gonna win, who was going to return, and who was going to turn on who. But the only good thing the Royal Rumble is good for is making for great feuds to take you to Wrestlemania. Look at HBK and Jericho, HBK and Kurt Angle, and HBK and Undertaker. For once, hype up or suprise us with a big name return and have them lose the Royal Rumble, to add more realness to WWE Television. And give us a real easy to beleive winner to win the Royal Rumble for the First time, and not another Rey Mysterio fairy tale happening, but let's just say Kofi Kingston, Jack Swagger, Big Show, CM Punk, and yeah even Shaemus. So I beleive adding realness and a beleivable new face, or fresh first time Royal Rumble winner will bring integrity back to the Rumble.

 

[floresr1986]

Every year around this time I get super excited for the Royal Rumble! The card starts to build and the undercard always excites (with a few Hardcore Holly exceptions). On the other hand the big battle royal, well the outcome seems to always disappoint. Don't get me wrong I enjoy the ride but when the dust has settled was it all really worth it? Perfect example, Cena returns wins the rumble and loses at No Way Out and then again WM. Edge returns and loses at WM. The last time I was excited about the closing seconds of a rumble was 2007 when HBK and Undertaker were laid out on their backs (simultaneous "kip up" plus "sit up")!

The Royal Rumble to me is a stepping stone but in recent memory has been B.S..

I would like for it to be a catapult for rising superstars who have not held the major titles!

My point is Royal Rumbles have been major let downs in the past and it's mainly because of returning superstars, who have held the world title before, coming back and winning this big match. The only superstars that I would appreciate winning the Royal Rumble upon their return would be those that have never held the belt!

 

[SFC]

The rumble is always an exciting one, even if it does end up going to a huge name. Would I like the lower-tier guys to win? Absolutely. Who knows.

As for a PPV, it does have it's fair share of excitement. 2001, IC title ladder match between Jericho and Benoit, fantastic match.

 

[drobs85]

The rumble has lost it's excitement. If it's not a returning star from injury who wins it, it's an already an established star who wins it. So either way it's always a star who wins it. So not worth the buy or attention.

 

[Tattooed Jesus]

It's one of my favorite PPVs and always delivers on excitement and surprises not something many others do each and every year.

I don't care who wins as long as it builds a good story leading into Wrestlemania and so far thats what the RR has accomplished the last few years.

 

[WWEIsLife2]

The Royal Rumble is my Favorite PPV of the year and I always look forward to it. Plus it starts the Road To Wrestlemania each year and thats important. You don't need to have an up and comer win it as they are not ready to win the Match just yet. Its more for the established guys like John Cena,HBK,Undertaker,Edge,Brock Lesnar,Bret Hart/Lex Luger,Hulk Hogan,Ric Flair,HHH,Batista,and others who have won it.

 

[NoBloodEra]

I dont understand why they are not giving anyone a big push leading up to the RR. To me they should start lots a different fueds between mid carders that end at the RR to see what works with the company in the future. Instead of doing that they make it look like Cena has an injury just so he can win it in his hometown, this is getting rediculous. this pay per view was made for a mid carder to rise to the top and main event wrestlemania not for all of the "Top Dogs" to hog the spotlight...

 

[martymcfly]

I think that the biggest problem with the royal rumble is actually its prize. With a wrestlemania title shot on the line, we all know that WWE is unlikely to put an up and comer in the main event at what they claim is the biggest show of the year. So going into the rumble, while there are 30 guys, each year there are usually only 2, maybe 3 guys who even have a chance of winning, and they are ones who are already main event stars. So while the match itself tends to be good, it suffers because there is very little excitement with respect to the winner.

To fix this, I think that the winner could potentially be anyone. So the WWE needs to stop shooting themselves in the foot with the title match at wrestlemania prize and replace it with something else...and I think a money in the bank contract would work really well. Granted, money in the bank contracts now seem to float around frequently, so to offer this as a prize, WWE would need to remove other MITB prizes, either take it out of wrestlemania or remove the MITB pay per view. But I think a hiatus of those other MITBs wouldn't be a bad thing either.

So to nutshell: make royal rumble more exciting by making it more unknown who will win and the possibility that it could be an up and comer by having the title be money in the bank instead of a wrestlemania match.

 

[NoBloodEra]

I agree, to me i think that all of the top guys should either be in a main event or normal match that pay per view or sit out of the rumble match. I want to see like 20 mid carders, a few random returns and the rest are debuts of random guys in the back that have been waiting so patiently, drew macintyre, i saw him at a house show like a whole year before he debuted, i want to see some new talent since thier roster isnt getting any younger...

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

There are gimmick matches which have stereotypical winners. Look at the MITB match. It is a great way of push a young heel. In the same way, winning the Royal Rumble is a great way of pushing a young face, especially if the face starts out early in the match.

WWE pushes enough young guys but most of the young guys are heels. It is not that they cannot be faces but merely the fact that the biggest faces in the WWE ie Cena, Orton are still young and WWE does not need to make a new face. That is why you are seeing these established guys being pushed as compared to young guys. The Royal Rumble match usually has face winners and the faces these days are mostly established stars.