Why Didn't WCW Have A Royal Rumble?

[The Brain]

I have been wondering something lately so I’d like to ask your opinions. The Royal Rumble is coming up and even though this match is over 20 years old I have never come across anyone who doesn’t like it or thinks it has grown stale. Given the popularity of the rumble I can’t help but wonder why WCW never did this. Here’s what I came up with.

Is it possible WWE has some sort of copyright on the rumble match? Of course the name Royal Rumble is copyrighted but could that copyright extend to the match itself? Is there some legal reason that prevented WCW from doing that match under another name? I’m no law expert, but I wouldn’t think such a thing would be able to be copyrighted.

Maybe the two companies were honoring some sort of unwritten rule about stealing each other’s matches. I used the rumble as an example but you could say the same thing for War Games or any other gimmick match. Did they just have an agreement not to infringe on each other’s ideas? Maybe it was an unwritten rule in the business. It seems unlikely considering the other tactics that were used. WWE put the first Survivor Series on ppv the same night as Starrcade in 1987 and threatened whatever cable company carried Starrcade would not have the right to show WrestleMania IV. Years later WCW announced WWE results live on Nitro before the matches aired on Raw. Each company has stooped pretty low to hurt the competition in the past so I doubt some sort of unwritten rule would exist.

The only other thing I can think of is by stealing the other’s idea a company would admit that their competition is more creative than they are. If WCW did a Royal Rumble match in 1993 they would be accused of stealing a WWF idea because they couldn’t come up with an idea as good. It may seem petty but given the people involved I could see that being the case.

So what do you guys think? Why didn’t we see a WCW Royal Rumble or a WWF War Games?

 

[klunderbunker]

WCW more or less did have that match. It was called World War 3. Now I know it didn't have the timer, but think about it: a huge battle royal with the winner getting the title shot at the biggest show of the year. That's the Rumble.

As for why the specific matches don't happen, it's probably so that the company doing the copying wouldn't look like they were copying. You change the name of a battle royal and twist the rules slightly and it's a different match while still being the same. Also, why do something that someone else already has done? You have to up the ante rather than just matching it.

 

[The Brain]

I suppose you are right. I just thought World War 3 was such a terrible match. It was such a mess. I hated that match but I love the rumble. We can look at World War 3 as WCW’s answer to the Rumble. I just never did because in my opinion the Rumble is so much better than WW3 it’s not even funny. That’s just my opinion though. I guess there are those out there who thought World War 3 was better. You’re right though. Just matching something doesn’t really accomplish anything. You have to play the one-upmanship game in this business.

 

[hdchz013]

I forgot the name of the match itself...but didn't TNA do something similar where they had some sort of battle royal style match...it was an over-the-top-rope thing like WWE does their battle royals...but in TNA once it got down to the final two, it was no longer the battle royal style...it all of a sudden switched to pinfall or submission. Am I wrong in thinking that was TNA's version of "one-upping" WWE?
I think this was actually a good question posed by The Brain. I've wondered the same thing on occasion myself. And the way Klunderbunker worded his answer makes perfect sense to me.

 

[CalciferBoheme]

TNA had the Gauntlet for the Gold. And yeah, that's how it worked.



I always thought Battle Bowl should have been WCW's answer to the Rumble. I loved those first three, it's just to bad they abandoned it for a few years only to come back with the awful and obviously rigged one.

 

[Sparky]

Also, why do something that someone else already has done? You have to up the ante rather than just matching it.

I agree with this. Having their answer to Wrestlemania makes sense as the only thing they are really copying is that once a year they put on a show that's better then the rest, to entice you to buy it. I think they didn't worry about doing the rumble because it was already being done. and they was trying to distance themselves from the WWE.

 

[marklouis]

They did. It was called World War 3. It couldn't be called the Royal Rumble, because WWE has the copyright on the name. WCW probably looked at it like this: "WWF has 1 ring, we have 3! We're 3 times better!" They were wrong, as the rumble is a better match, but that was likely their thinking. But the winner of WW3 received a title match, just like the winner of the rumble. It was the same concept, just a different match.

 

[mral82]

WCW had World War 3 and the winner goes to Starrcade or Superbrawl for A World Title Shot.

And TNA has/had the Feast Or Fired not the Gaunlet for the Gold as Feast or Fired was a TNA World HW, TNA X Division and TNA Tag Team Championships shots and the last case was a ur fired stip

 

[Oracular Spectacular]

WW3's are really unmemorable because they would eliminate everybody but the NWO, WCW's main eventers and like 3 random guys(I think Greg "The Hammer" Valentine stayed in till like the final 15 one time.) Basically it was just anohter NWO vs WCW angle with a pretty bow on top.

Anyone remember Scott Hall winning and they never gave him a title shot and never mentioned he won it?

 

[MB1025]

WW3's are really unmemorable because they would eliminate everybody but the NWO, WCW's main eventers and like 3 random guys(I think Greg "The Hammer" Valentine stayed in till like the final 15 one time.) Basically it was just anohter NWO vs WCW angle with a pretty bow on top.

Anyone remember Scott Hall winning and they never gave him a title shot and never mentioned he won it?

Scott Hall won WW3 in 1997. He then went on to face Sting in March of 1998 at Uncensored for the world title.


As far as the topic goes WCW had World War 3. Great concept because it gave more wrestlers an opportunity to shine or at least make it look that way. They just always booked them unmemorable.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

I loved the way it was done, it was far mor realistic than a royal rumble is because usually the biggest toughest guys wouldn'tever get close to getting thrown out and the smaller guys from independant shows wouldn't stand a chance and would get thrown out quickly. Some people say it was a sloppy version of a Royal Rumble. I would call it Royal rumble on a larger scale... I mean come on 60 guys and three rings! That's a spectacle!! Forget about what you think of the context and where winning the match actually lead, in itself it was very fun to watch.

It's similar to the wargames vs a cage match for me. Both are entertaining but wargames (obviously because of the limitless budget of Ted Turner) was done on a bigger scale. But yes I enjoyed it, anyway that's kindof old news now and not really worth discussing. Why didn't WCW have a Royal Rumble? Well they had their own version. If they had the exact same thing it would have made comparing the two shows boring. This isn't all to say I prefered WW3, I do enjoy the rumble more because it isindeed a little less messy but having the timer for opponents for me would have swung it for me, even if there were only minute differences between them because that would still mean at least 60 minutes of action with the winner having to endure about 70-75 minutes of action at most.

 

[fenfool]

World War 3 was awesome! I don't know how you even begin to book something that massive. I thought War Games, Lethal Lottery and WW3 were all fun events...they had some good gimmick matches!

 

[The Brain]

Just to be clear I was only using Royal Rumble as an example. I didn’t mean to directly compare Royal Rumble to World War 3. The real question is why either company didn’t infringe on the others gimmick matches that were proven to be successful. I laid out three possible reasons in my original post and have come to the conclusion that the third reason is the most likely.

In WCW’s case I didn’t think they would care if they were accused of copying WWF as long as they attracted more viewers. I’m referring specifically to WCW circa 1994/1995. WCW was copying a lot of old WWF stuff during that time. Remember The Renegade. Worst ripoff ever. It was in 1995 that they introduced WW3 so I’m assuming in their minds they had topped the Rumble. In my mind it was a total flop.

 

[johnbragg]

It was before WCW, and before the Royal Rumble according to Wikipedia, but Jim Crockett PRomotions had the Bunkhouse Stampede from 1985-88, which was a battle royale where everyone wore cowboy boots and jeans, apparently.

Historians, am I (and is wikipedia) getting this totally wrong?

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

It would have to be World War 3!! It didn't last long, there were only 4 ppv's from 95 to 98.. It was different to the Rumble as there was 3 rings each with 20 wrestlers and everyone started in the ring at the same time.. It wasn't all that as the later years was allabout NWO..

 

[spinningtorturerack]

I think you have to look at it from a business point of view.

If your trying to create a product that you want to rival the leading product, your not going to produce a carbon copy of it. Then you get called a cheap imitator, making your product look second rate compared to the original.

However if you take the basic tools the original used and compile your own product with its own twist, it is easier to attract customers to your product because it is different and stands out.

Taking the royal rumble as the example, if both companies had a royal rumble, then they would be in direct competition making it easier to see the flaws in the companies and make a direct comparison. Saying that, however, if Bischoff really and truly believed in its product and stars, then they could of held a royal rumble to prove they can do it better. But would it have been worth the risk of exposing themselves?

 

[Oracular Spectacular]

It was before WCW, and before the Royal Rumble according to Wikipedia, but Jim Crockett PRomotions had the Bunkhouse Stampede from 1985-88, which was a battle royale where everyone wore cowboy boots and jeans, apparently.

Historians, am I (and is wikipedia) getting this totally wrong?

Well Battle Royals have been around forever. Back in the sideshow days of wrestling in the 20's-30's you would have at state fairs like 15 people get in the ring and try to knock each other out.

The concept of a battle royal is by no means new at all. What makes the Royal Rumble special is a mixture between its legacy and the WWE's popularity. Remember WCW got rid of World War 3, and TNA has never had an annual Gauntlet For The Gold(Even though they should)

Its a fun concept and its always exciting, I have friends that have long ago stopped watching wrestling that will go to a bar or rent the PPV cause Its always fun.