World War 3 vs Royal Rumble

[Jobber Bob]

which concept was more entertaining? WCW's World War 3 or WWE's Royal Rumble??

if you never heard of world war 3, allow me to give a brief explination. WW3 was a PPV from 1995-1998, it was a battle royal that consisted of 3 rings and 60 men.

Pros: very entertaining and you couldnt predict the outcome.

Cons: the match was too messy, couldnt really fallow it

very well. and the Royal Rumble 1988-present, is a type of battle royal that has a total of 30 men. starts with 2 participants and every 90 seconds or so another partipant will enter and that will continue until all 30 have entered.

Pros: very easy to fallow and enjoy, outcomes may suprise.

Cons: sometimes

it can be very predictable ie: returns of main event stars (hhh 02 and cena08)


so my question to you is with did you enjoy more???

 

[healyz84]

Without a doubt its the Royal Rumble. While the World War 3 battle royal was an interesting concept, it could be confusing with all the action taking place. 3 rings, 60 superstars, way too messy. Then you got near the end of the match, I don't remember exactly when, and all the remaining superstars went into 1 ring, and then it was a regular battle royal. The concept also doesn't work because you need 60 superstars to compete. I want a battle royal to be a best of the best (or close enough) I don't want to see the weekly jobbers be in it, because I know they have no chance.

The Royal Rumble is by far the best concept. You have 30 superstars compete, with 2 men starting and a new superstar entering at a pre-determined time. It has created some of the most surprising and shocking moments. And its very unpredictable, even with the two returning superstars victorys (HHH and Cena) it was still hard to tell who would win (HHH could have lost to Angle, Cena to HHH). Then the reward is always the greatest, to be able to compete in the main event at wrestlemania.

 

[pun2003hh]

The Royal Rumble. Having the entry system in place allows for a stories to be told around the progression of the match, plus allows for the strong element of surprise. The Rumble has also produced countless moments that are etched in time (Austin 97 Rumble in which he was alone in the ring for a good portion, eliminating anyone who came in and looking at his invisible watch; Shawn Micheals going from number 1 to win it; Kane eliminating 11 guys in one Rumble; Raw and Smackdown guys jumping Muhammad Hassan and dumping him out in 05; Mysterio's win in 06; etc etc).

World War III had everyone start at once and was usually a clusterf*ck until they got down to the final 20 in one ring. Just my opinion though.

 

[ABMorales787]

World War 3 was a Royal Rumble ripoff in the first place. Sure, it very unpredictable, but way too messy. Finding enough superstars was one thing and keeping track of the eliminations was another. With the Royal Rumble, sometimes you have predictable outcomes (like Mysterio and Orton). But sometimes it has some very surprising outcomes (Cena, McMahon, Taker) and some emotional one (Benoit, Triple)

The Royal Rumble creates multiple stories for Wrestlemania, plus it had many memorable moments as mentioned above. So my vote goes to the Royal Rumble.

 

[King Patrick Star]

I’m not sure which one I think is better, but a combination of both concepts would be really fun to watch in the WWE today. Let’s see. I would take the Royal Rumble’s entry system, but instead of one at a time, I would do 3 at a time, one from each Brand. Over The Top rules apply. I’d remove the “30 Men remaining all move to one ring” rule. Once there’s one Star from each brand remaining, the match becomes a Triple Threat Elimination match. Yeah, it’s a bit much. Royal Rumble it is!!

 

[JimmyLeviathan]

The Royal Rumble, hands down. World War 3 was an absolute clusterfuck and as someone mentioned above, the Rumble makes for much better storytelling. It's outlasted World War 3 by a mile, not to mention that WWE wouldn't even have 90 wrestlers (as in decent wrestlers with a character, not no-name local talent) to fill the rings with.

The Royal Rumble has far better memories too and on a personal level it's always been my favourite PPV: Chris Benoit winning after over an hour, Shawn Michaels going coast to coast, Kane eliminating 11 people (correct me if I'm wrong), Stone Cold winning three of them, Mr. McMahon (regrettably) winning one of them, Mick Foley entering as Mankind, Dude Love and Cactus Jack in the one Rumble...

Can't wait for Rumble 2010...

 

[CKDaimen]

Please stop saying the Royal Rumble is less predictable because it isn't. 9 out of 10 times you have the winner narrowed down to 2 people. Three if you're lucky, and 4 if it's a classic Rumble. You know why? WRESTLEMANIA. The whole winner gets a shot at Wrestlemania is cool and all, but you gotta admit, it takes a lot of suspense out of it. Right then and there you can eliminate 98% of the people in the match. NOw with World War 3, ANYBODY COULD WIN BECAUSE THE STAKES WEREN'T TOO BIG. See with the Rumble, it's good to have stakes but the stakes are TOO BIG. It ruins the suspense. With World War 3 you got the title shot, but it wasn't at the biggest event in the year. Then again I do think WW3 was in November and Starrcade was in December so correct me if I'm wrong.....but from what I recall, you got a future title shot but not neccesarily at Starrcade, which is what the WWE should do.

Altogether, Rumble is more entertaining because of the count down and you can see and follow more action, although WW3 is a really cool concept in it's own right and harder to predict the winner.

 

[The Brain]

To me the Royal Rumble is by far the better concept. By far. World War 3 was a mess. I only saw the first one in 1995 and had no interest in ever seeing another. In fact I thought it was such a mess I’m surprised they ever had another. It was impossible to follow. You could barely see what was going on with the three way split screen. Half the guys were glorified jobbers. I thought World War 3 was just an awful match.

The Royal Rumble is a fun match. It is the beginning of the road to WrestleMania and a lot of the mania storylines begin at the rumble. It’s always fun to see who’s coming out next when the clock reaches zero. I agree the stakes are a little too high for the rumble. It’s true with the winner getting a title shot at mania you can usually narrow the winner down to two people. I like the stipulation because the rumble winner should get a big prize, but it does eliminate a lot of suspense. I think a solution would be to have a triple threat match at No Way Out with three rumble participants with the winner getting the mania title shot. The three participants would be the rumble winner, the one who lasted the longest, and the one who eliminated the most people. This way we can make the already exciting rumble match even more exciting by having more to watch for. Now this idea would help only a little as far as predictability. The three who go to No Way Out would still have to be pretty big stars, but at least it opens up the actual winner of the rumble to a few more people.

While it may not be perfect, I think the Royal Rumble is way better than World War 3.

 

[jayteeERA]

Well i have to be different and say World War 3. I know its a Royal Rumble rip off, but don't care atleast it was unpredictable.(except in 1998, cause goldberg was champ and defeated everybody but nash) The Royal Rumble is sometimes predictable. WW3 in 1996 got me starting watching wrestling. Sure it was a lot of wrestlers to keep up with, but it was entertaining. Anybody could of won it. I was hoping WCW would of had one in 1999, it would of been interesting and made sense with the WCW title being vacated at that time. I feel when WCW drop WW3 and War games that year it went down hill.

WW3 might have kept WCW still going on even though its a Royal Rumble rip off, just like dx being a nwo rip off.

 

[Congo Janzen]

I prefer the Rumble better because unlike the WW3, the Royal Rumble was easier to keep track of, and almost all Rumble are seen on camera so most eliminations could have been memorable, or could lead to many memories.
Like maven and taker in 2002. If that happened in one of the rings in WW3, only few people would have caught to it. Santino and Warlords, short appearences. Priceless.
Kane eliminatig 11 in 2001, couldn't have been able to keep track of that in WW3 . . .

 

[Jobber Bob]

i do also enjoy the royal rumble alot, but world war 3 was also an interreating concept

and even though was sloppy, took alot of thought and alot of particaipation from

everyone,it was a very sloppy match, but was entertaining and creative.

 

[Dagger Dias]

which concept was more entertaining? WCW's World War 3 or WWE's Royal Rumble??

World War 3's concept was a good idea.... but it has two major flaws. It was hard to follow what was going on, which made it a bit confusing.... also, ITS NAME. Whoever came up with that name should be in the wrestling Hall of Shame. "World War 3" took home 1st place on a list online somewhere for "worst PPV names ever".... I forgot where because it was so long ago, but that person was absolutely right.

The Royal Rumble, on the other hand.... is an event looked forward to by so many fans each and every year. It has zero, if any, flaws. Rumble wins this quite easily because it is one of the best events in wrestling history, while World War 3 is more of a novelty.

 

[JAWILLIAMS]

Well i won't dispute that Royal Rumble isn't better, cause hands down it is.

But WW3 was fun for me, with 60 superstars you got to see jobbers and unknowns get a PPV shot. Jim powers, Ciclope, the Villanos

i wouldnt mind seeing 1 done WWE style, 1 ring RAW, 1 ring SMACKDOWN, 1 ring ECW.....all we need is ECW to gain a little more superstars to the roster

 

[wbuqed]

Ill take Royal Rumble over WW3, I actually didn't like the idea of all the jobbers in the match. I only watched WCW from 96-01 so I saw only 3 WW3 battle royals and to me there was just as much predictability if not more predictability then the rumble. At that time you knew that it was either gonna be NWO member or maybe anyone of 8 people from WCW. So at that point you take out the use of 40 or so wrestlers in there.

Plus I was never a fan of the idea that a wrestler could be eliminated by going between ropes, you have to throw the challenge down of making a wrestler go over the top, otherwise you lose moments like when Benoit pulled Big show over the top rope. I mean think about it, if Benoit knocked big show out with the crossface then just kept baseball sliding into him to get him out, do you really remember it?

 

[Tastycles]

Definitely Royal Rumble. World War 3 was kind of fun in a way, but there was no way you could follow it all, and it turned into a massive clusterfuck every time without fail. Both matches only have a maximum of about 6 possible winners, but that leaves 24 nobodies in the Rumble, and over 50 in World War 3. The other thing to remember is that there has pretty much only been one bad rumble out of 23, in my opinion, which was 1993. The same can't be said of World War 3, which only had 4 matches.