Who should win the Rumble? A Main Eventer or an Unexpected Talent?

[Avrusha92]

I think guys like Jericho, or CM Punk should win the Royal Rumble because it will be another feather in the cap for them. CM Punk is already a 2, or 3 time World Champion and won the Money in the Bank back to back, a Rumble win will do so much to him! He will get into the Main Event scene and become one of the top heels or faces in WWE. WWE really found the next biggest thing on the Roster and that is CM Punk!
Jericho is a multi time world champ, 08 superstar of the year, 2nd Unified Tag Team Champion in History, he was in WWE/F for so many years and still has not won a Rumble? Cmon! hes one of the best WWE has got.. WWE keeps having guys like Triple H, Taker, Cena, HBK in the main event other than fresher guys that never been in a WM Main Event but deserve to like Punk and Chris.
It will be an amazing moment if a guy like Punk, Chris, or Christian win the Rumble, and go on to WrestleMania 26 and win the World Title there!

 

[RobL15]

I've voted for an upper-midcarder.

This is why. I believe that whether its Taker, Rey, Seamus, or Orton that the person is facing, that an upper midcarder will pull off the best match there could be. The Miz, JoMo, Jericho or more could do a great job headlining Wrestlemania! Not only that, it pushes someone up to Main Event status in one swift throw over the top rope.
Could we just remember Christian can't win the Rumble because he aint in it?

 

[Travaje]

I do not like that the winner of Royal Rumble gets a title shot at Wrestlemania. I think that idea has run it's course and makes the Rumble predictable and lackluster. If they changed it to a title shot at any time, much like the Money In The Bank match, it would be a LOT better. And until they change that, the answer to your question is the guy the office thinks should win the strap at Wrestlemania and carry the company through that year.

 

[cagman1]

I think anyone should win. I mean Superstars winning is kind of boring. Their is not that many monsters in the WWE and Mid Card people that is what Money In The Bank at WM is for.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I think that almost anyone should be allowed to win the Royal Rumble. Not anyone, but ALMOST anyone. You can't open the possibility of ANYONE winning because then the argument could be for a jobber who WWE has no plans to push winning it, and that would make no sense. They do not have to give a win to a main eventer every year, but they do make a big deal about the winner receiving their title shot at Wrestlemania so it makes sense for the guys higher up on the card to be getting Royal Rumble wins. They could let guys like Kane or Big Show win it since they get hyped up every year as a potential favorite, yet they would run the risk of a boring main event at Wrestlemania. Midcarders and upper midcarders should definitely be allowed to win it though because winning the Royal Rumble is a great way for them to break into the main event, although that shouldn't happen unless WWE know that they are ready to give that wrestler the push of a lifetime. Basically.... I think that the case could be made for almost anyone to be allowed to win it, but the better options are either main eventers or someone breaking into the main event because what it all comes down to in the end is a Wrestlemania push and it needs to be someone great who can pull it off.

 

[Tastycles]

The winner should be an established main eventer. The main event of WrestleMania is something that you really can't afford to take a risk on and the Rumble winner therefore has to be a banker. That's the fiscal side of it, but it should also be the fan side of it too. I want WrestleMania to feel like the biggest wrestling show of the year, and putting someone untested in there isn't going to cut that for me.

The only objection to this is that it is predicable, to which I say it doesn't have to be. Yes, last year was obvious, but most years it isn't. A quick look of the WZPC thread shows me that of the 38 people that made predictions, 3 got it right. That, to me, is plenty unpredictability, and I'd take that 8% predictability of the Rumble over 0% certainty in the quality of the Mania main event.

 

[byrnside]

Ah, the Royal Rumble has long been my favorite WWE pay per view. Granted, I'm almost a week late for this thread, but my laptop is out of commission for the time being, and I'm using a friend's spare. Anywho.. For years, I've always thought about this exact question trying to analyze the participantants in anticipation of who I thought would win each year. Personally, I think all of the choices are good choices. Depending on certain things, IE- Who current champions are, how many stars are around, etc. Those ultimately decide who your Rumble winner will be. Take this year for example, in what was perhaps one of the most star studded Rumble matches in years, you had a brand new star as WWE champion in Sheamus, and as a balance, a legend in the Undertaker as World champion. The WWE is in a serious rebuilding phase, so to me, this year, it would've been a no brainer, as well as a complete shock to have an up and comer like Kofi Kingston or an upper mid carder like Jericho win. It opens up all sorts of new possibilities for the year. Of course with Edge coming back early from injury was a surprise and a good choice. I feel like it's always a good idea to have someone who hasn't won it before win and go on to 'Mania.