Would you rather see a MITB match or Battle Royal at Mania?

[LODemolition]

The WWE roster is the deepest it's been in as long as I can remember. And once WrestleMania season rolls around, it has the potential to become even deeper if they do indeed sign Sting and Goldberg to be involved in the show. Not to mention, Lesnar, RVD and Sheamus will be back for sure. Jericho, Henry and Mysterio are possible (if not likely) to be back. Triple H could have a match. There's even longshots like Hogan, Austin, The Rock, or Batista making a return for the night.

It's a 4-hour show, but with the roster being THIS deep, they might have to try and fit 2-3 matches on the hour-long pre show just to try and get everyone their spot on the card.

So my question is this: every year, there seems to be a large tag team match to take care of getting anywhere between 8 to 12 guys involved in one shot. This year, instead of a giant tag match would you rather see a big battle royal or MITB match? Now, when I say MITB match, I don't mean the same kind they have at the July PPV where the winner has a year to cash-in. I wouldn't even call it a MITB match, just a #1 contender ladder match. Yes, there'd still be a briefcase hanging above the ring with the contract inside. However, the winner would get his title match at a pre-determined date (the May or June ppv, maybe even as late as SummerSlam). No surprise element as far as the cash-in goes. We already have that twice a year.

Or would you rather see a simple battle royal with the 12 major names I'm about to name (and then we could easily add 8 mid-carders to make it a nice round number of 20 competitors)?

These would be my 12 names set in stone: Big Show, Kane, Jericho, Sandow, RVD, Wyatt, Ziggler, Ryback, Kofi, Fandango, Sheamus and Del Rio. And my winner would be Bray Wyatt.

Throw in Barrett, Christian, Bourne, Khali, Ryder, Gabriel, The Miz and R-Truth if you want to make it an even 20.

Some might say, why waste huge names like Jericho, RVD or others in a match like this? Well, I want as many names who are main event caliber as possible without taking away from singles matches that can have a great build and storyline.

And to give you an idea why I would include these names in the match, I'll show you how I see the card shaping up at this point (whether based on rumors or just gut feelings). This is also the order I'd set the card up in...

Pre Show:

Six Man Tag: Tons of Funk & Santino vs. 3 Man Band

Divas Title Lumberjill Match: AJ Lee (c) vs. Natalya

Main Card:

Cody Rhodes vs. Goldust *Special Guest Ref Dusty Rhodes*

IC Title: Curtis Axel (c) vs. Tyson Kidd

Six Team Tag Title Ladder Match: Rowan & Harper (c) vs. The Usos vs. Real Americans vs. Mysterio & Sin Cara vs. Prime Time Players vs. Los Matadores

Big E. Langston vs. Mark Henry

US Title Triple Threat: Dean Ambrose (c) vs. Roman Reigns vs. Seth Rollins

#1 Contender Ladder Match or Battle Royal

For Control of the WWE: Daniel Bryan w/ Vince vs. Triple H w/ Steph

The Undertaker vs. Brock Lesnar

Undisputed Title Triple Threat: Randy Orton (WWE Champ) vs. CM Punk (Rumble Winner) vs John Cena (World Champ) *Special Guest Ref The Rock*

 

[LoudClearVoice]

I wouldn't do a Battle Royal at Wrestlemania. For one thing it's too close to the Royal Rumble. If they have a 30 man rumble in January and then a 20 man battle royal a few months later, that's a bit excessive don't ya think?

I like MITB matches because there are few superstars, there's typically better action and typically everyone in it except for maybe 1 guy has a believable chance to win it. I feel like in a battle royal, there's a lot of wasted time and meaningless spots from guys you know aren't going to win.

 

[LODemolition]

Fair enough. I just feel really strongly that they'll use ladders in the tag team title match because I can't imagine they use any less than 4 teams with the emphasis they're putting on that division lately. So maybe 2 ladder matches in 1 night is excessive as well.

I'd personally rather see a ladder match over a battle royal too. Battle royals usually feel really rushed and once it gets down to the last 4, you know exactly who's going to win.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

Battle royals usually feel really rushed and once it gets down to the last 4, you know exactly who's going to win.

Totally agree here. That's kinda the point I was getting at. With a battle royal, there's a lot of wasted time since you know for sure who isn't winning it and then when a few guys get eliminated, you have a general idea of who is winning vs. a MITB match where there might be favorites to win but in general any of the participants could win it.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Money in the Bank initially began at WrestleMania and, for a while, had become a WrestleMania tradition. If given a choice between one or the other, I'd much rather have a MITB match make a return to WrestleMania, but only if WWE was doing away with the MITB ppv. Given that there's talk of POSSIBLY doing a title unification match between the WWE and World Heavyweight Champions, there's a possibility of that happening. If that goes down then, in my opinion, the MITB ppv has to go away and a single MITB match takes place at WrestleMania like it once did.

Battle royals are fine but, as a whole, battle royals just don't have the kind of chaotic action of a ladder match, nor the freshness nor the excitement. Most battle royals are primarily punch & kick fests until you've got the number of people in the ring whittled down to about half a dozen or so. Plus, all in all, the Royal Rumble is really the only battle royal in wrestling that means anything. IF, IF, IF WWE does intend to have a title unification match as part of WM XXX, however, I wonder where that leaves the RR winner.

 

[MCMG]

The problem with bringing back MITB or even a similar type concept is the actual PPV itself which has done fantastically well since its inception. Having someone win a briefcase just three months before the PPV would be a little ridiculous. Even having an 8 man ladder match may not work because we would just be seeing the exact same spots with very similar wrestlers. That is why a tag-team match (with tables and chairs) is a far better choice.

As for a battle royal, I think that would be suited for the pre-show with the winner getting a chance at something on the actual card. Maybe something like a shot at the Intercontinental Champion. I wouldn't mind seeing a smaller battle royal filled with bigger names but I think there are ways to fit everyone that needs/should be on the card without wasting them.

If we had to have a battle royal at all, I would love another gimmick one on the pre-show. That would be fantastic for getting people hyped and the built in nostalgia of WM30. That or the winner facing the IC or US champion.

 

[Redemption-2012]

Don't see the point in either match, if I had to choose I would go with a MITB match as I feel the PPV has ran it's course at this point. I don't see the WWE allowing this type of match up to take any time away from the main card of the show. WrestleMania is all about BIG money matches such as John Cena vs The Rock or CM Punk vs The Undertaker. Although I love your main match card for the show and mine currently looks like this:

John Cena (c) vs CM Punk (c) title unification match No holds barred World title vs WWE title
Brock Lesnar vs The Undertaker in a streak vs contract match
Triple H vs Daniel Bryan for control of the WWE

Those would be my main money matches for this year.

 

[LODemolition]

The point would be like I said, to get everyone on the roster a spot on the card like they deserve. But for the match to actually matter as well by putting a future title shot at stake.

 

[Kidpolean]

The point would be like I said, to get everyone on the roster a spot on the card like they deserve. But for the match to actually matter as well by putting a future title shot at stake.

NO NO NO...everybody on the roster does not deserve a spot at Mania, the same way every player in the NFL doesn't deserve to play in the superbowl. Mania spot should be reserved for the main event guys, guys that bring in the most money, and the most entertaining wrestlers in the wwe. If you dont fit into one of those categories than you should work harder to get to that level but until then you should sit in the back and watch the people that earned their spot wrestle at Mania.

and to answer your question I dont want either one cuz its not needed

 

[Dagger Dias]

As far as Wrestlemania matches are concerned, I would rather see a Battle Royal. I may be in the minority but I like having Money In the Bank as its own PPV event instead of being a part of Wrestlemania. I liked what they did at Wrestlemania 24 where the pre-show match was a Battle Royal where the winner received an ECW Championship shot later on in the show. They could do that again for either the US or Intercontinental Championship, however it doesn't have to be the pre-show match it can be the opening match on the actual card. It's a nice way to start off the show and gets several names onto the card. Sure, Money In the Bank at Wrestlemania was cool while it lasted; but why get rid of one of, if not THE, strongest new PPV brands? Give me the Battle Royal. I'm fine with Money In the Bank not taking place at Wrestlemania anymore.

 

[The Eighties]

I agree with Dagger, WWE have struggled to establish PPV brands outside of the main 4 and I think MITB has been their biggest success in this regard, so I wouldn't move the match to Mania.

I think a pre-show Battle Royale will take care of WWE's need to try and cram everyone on, and if they have a stip that the winner gets an IC or US title shot either on the actual card or the next night on Raw it gives it a little bit of purpose as well.

 

[CeramicDuck]

Maybe it is because of my age but I am a big mark for those battle royals with superstars from the last X years and I think doing a preshow battle royal with superstars from the last 30 years is fun, the matches suck balls but the intros are fun in a "the and now" capacity... I loved it when IRS won one of them and Dibiase bought the win from him... but this has to be on the preshow, as far as the main card, i think the guys who earned their way on to a mania card should be there and it should give everyone else something to strive for.

 

[HBsam31]

I would have to pick the Battle Royal. I have a always loved a good Battle Royal, and as a kid it was the most exciting match for me. As has already been said, the MITB ppv does pretty well, and I see no reason for them to get rid of it. Battle Royals are fun and if used at the beginning of Mania it could be good to get the crowd going for the rest of the event.