havoc7179
Main Eventer
What is this?
Joined on: Oct 16, 2012 9:11:18 GMT -5
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by havoc7179 on Mar 2, 2015 11:32:39 GMT -5
Also while I'm on the subject, I'd like to put a long standing myth to rest... View AttachmentI think the argument was always JR noting that Undertaker cannot eliminate Maven officially since he wasn't legal.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Mar 2, 2015 11:35:19 GMT -5
None of these are mistakes. They were all done on purpose. The only battle royal mistake I can think of is when Kaitlyn accidentally won a battle royal making her #1 contender and WWE just went with it.
|
|
|
Post by 3Ð on Mar 2, 2015 11:56:12 GMT -5
Test is the greatest wrestler to never win the Royal Rumble match of all time
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 18, 2024 23:51:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 12:06:32 GMT -5
anybody make the AxelMania gif yet?
|
|
|
Post by tehforoh on Mar 2, 2015 12:56:22 GMT -5
When chavo was eliminated he was pushed over the top turnbuckle/rope. How he got there doesn't matter. It counts. He went THROUGH the second rope and then was pushed off of the turnbuckle. To be eliminated you MUST go over the top rope. How is this so hard to understand? He may have went through the middle rope, but he still climbed to the top rope. People have been eliminated the same way numerous times and it still counted. Besides, every time some climbs to the top rope in the rumble it's always played off as being the most dangerous spot you can be.
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Mar 2, 2015 14:19:08 GMT -5
He went THROUGH the second rope and then was pushed off of the turnbuckle. To be eliminated you MUST go over the top rope. How is this so hard to understand? I know I'm going to regret getting involved in this.... I see your point, but when you scale the turnbuckle & stand on it - you are technically performing a legal move & therefore legally "back in the ring". That's why it's "not smart" in a Royal Rumble (or any other Battle Royal) to utilize top rope maneuvers - it's best to use a ground-based offense. Over the years, many commentators have pointed out that high flyers are at a disadvantage.... Whilst I agree with that logic, why then in a match does the referee count when a guy's climbing the ropes and standing on the top? I always notice it, but just assumed it was a part of leaving the ring and being susceptible to the 10 count because technically you left the ring when you stepped through the ropes. Unless they're bending the rules for the Rumble match, stepping through the ropes means you're not actually back in the ring even if you stand on the top rope. Again I believe you're right, but seems to be some sort of double standard maybe.
|
|
|
Post by Flair Forever on Mar 2, 2015 14:31:22 GMT -5
I know I'm going to regret getting involved in this.... I see your point, but when you scale the turnbuckle & stand on it - you are technically performing a legal move & therefore legally "back in the ring". That's why it's "not smart" in a Royal Rumble (or any other Battle Royal) to utilize top rope maneuvers - it's best to use a ground-based offense. Over the years, many commentators have pointed out that high flyers are at a disadvantage.... Whilst I agree with that logic, why then in a match does the referee count when a guy's climbing the ropes and standing on the top? I always notice it, but just assumed it was a part of leaving the ring and being susceptible to the 10 count because technically you left the ring when you stepped through the ropes. Unless they're bending the rules for the Rumble match, stepping through the ropes means you're not actually back in the ring even if you stand on the top rope. Again I believe you're right, but seems to be some sort of double standard maybe. Because you can't "touch" the ropes. It's the same principal as when a heel is applying a submission hold, but grabs the rope for leverage - the ref counts because the heel isn't allowed to be touching the rope. The ref counts a wrestler standing on the top rope because they are "touching" the ropes - but competitor is still considered to be standing inside the ring. In a normal match - if you stand on the top rope past the ref's 10 count - you risk disqualification, because touching the rope is illegal. Top rope maneuvers aren't illegal unless they exceed the 10-second count - except back in the day of WCW Bill Watts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 18, 2024 23:51:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 16:13:05 GMT -5
In '93, didn't Savage throw himself over the top rope? I'm sure Gorilla Monsoon had to come up with some BS on the spot about him not being eliminated. Then he came back in and tried to pin Yoko.
|
|
|
Post by Flair Forever on Mar 2, 2015 16:33:35 GMT -5
In '93, didn't Savage throw himself over the top rope? I'm sure Gorilla Monsoon had to come up with some BS on the spot about him not being eliminated. Then he came back in and tried to pin Yoko. Actually, in 1992, Savage jumped over the top rope to get to Jake Roberts..... Monsoon claimed that he was allowed back in the match, because you have to be propelled over the top rope by another competitor. By this logic - Drew Carey was never eliminated either.....
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 18, 2024 23:51:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 16:38:47 GMT -5
In '93, didn't Savage throw himself over the top rope? I'm sure Gorilla Monsoon had to come up with some BS on the spot about him not being eliminated. Then he came back in and tried to pin Yoko. Actually, in 1992, Savage jumped over the top rope to get to Jake Roberts..... Monsoon claimed that he was allowed back in the match, because you have to be propelled over the top rope by another competitor. By this logic - Drew Carey was never eliminated either..... Oh, it was '92! Well, I was only off by a year... And the less said about Drew Carey, the better.
|
|
|
Post by theoutlaw1999 on Mar 2, 2015 17:19:22 GMT -5
Who was the guy that never made it to the ring in the 1998 Rumble?
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Mar 2, 2015 17:30:38 GMT -5
Whilst I agree with that logic, why then in a match does the referee count when a guy's climbing the ropes and standing on the top? I always notice it, but just assumed it was a part of leaving the ring and being susceptible to the 10 count because technically you left the ring when you stepped through the ropes. Unless they're bending the rules for the Rumble match, stepping through the ropes means you're not actually back in the ring even if you stand on the top rope. Again I believe you're right, but seems to be some sort of double standard maybe. Because you can't "touch" the ropes. It's the same principal as when a heel is applying a submission hold, but grabs the rope for leverage - the ref counts because the heel isn't allowed to be touching the rope. The ref counts a wrestler standing on the top rope because they are "touching" the ropes - but competitor is still considered to be standing inside the ring. In a normal match - if you stand on the top rope past the ref's 10 count - you risk disqualification, because touching the rope is illegal. Top rope maneuvers aren't illegal unless they exceed the 10-second count - except back in the day of WCW Bill Watts. Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. You learn something new everyday...
|
|
|
Post by Charlie f'n Kelly on Mar 2, 2015 17:39:11 GMT -5
Technically axle was eliminated by Ambrose acouple weeks ago on raw, and I'm pretty sure at some point the others wer thrown over the top rope to. By your logic, every wrestler who's ever been throw over the top rope has already been eliminated. So Roman didn't win the rumble because he was thrown over last year.
|
|
|
Post by c-scope on Mar 2, 2015 17:42:54 GMT -5
Technically axle was eliminated by Ambrose acouple weeks ago on raw, and I'm pretty sure at some point the others wer thrown over the top rope to. By your logic, every wrestler who's ever been throw over the top rope has already been eliminated. So Roman didn't win the rumble because he was thrown over last year. no because like say axle he entered the rumble but never got eliminated then was thrown over the top rope on raw, so the match had started then he got thrown over so what your saying is false.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie f'n Kelly on Mar 2, 2015 17:44:40 GMT -5
The one I hate the most is Vader throwing Shawn over in 96 but them saying it didn't count. Vader was already eliminated so I see why it doesn't count, but that should be the rule in all rumbles.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie f'n Kelly on Mar 2, 2015 17:45:56 GMT -5
By your logic, every wrestler who's ever been throw over the top rope has already been eliminated. So Roman didn't win the rumble because he was thrown over last year. no because like say axle he entered the rumble but never got eliminated then was thrown over the top rope on raw, so the match had started then he got thrown over so what your saying is false. The Royal Rumble match isn't going on anymore. So him getting thrown over doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by c-scope on Mar 2, 2015 17:48:51 GMT -5
no because like say axle he entered the rumble but never got eliminated then was thrown over the top rope on raw, so the match had started then he got thrown over so what your saying is false. The Royal Rumble match isn't going on anymore. So him getting thrown over doesn't matter. technicaly it continued till he was thrown over because all but one man myst be eliminated for the match to be over. End of discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 18, 2024 23:51:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 18:00:06 GMT -5
The one I hate the most is Vader throwing Shawn over in 96 but them saying it didn't count. Vader was already eliminated so I see why it doesn't count, but that should be the rule in all rumbles. Eh, if it had always been the rule I'd be cool with it, but in past rumbles it wasn't a rule (like Gonzalez/Undertaker). I recall in one rumble Savage accidently eliminated himself and was let back in even though Andre/Kane and others weren't.
|
|
|
Post by Hendrix83 on Mar 2, 2015 18:00:41 GMT -5
The one I hate the most is Vader throwing Shawn over in 96 but them saying it didn't count. Vader was already eliminated so I see why it doesn't count, but that should be the rule in all rumbles. Yeah they tend to change the rules to suit their purposes. In some Rumbles wrestlers have been eliminated by someone who was already thrown out. Bad News Brown eliminated Roddy Piper after being eliminated. Then fast forward to '96 and Vader cleared house after he was gone. But everyone he eliminated was let back in. In some Rumbles wrestlers can eliminate themselves, while in others they can't. Like when Randy Savage eliminated himself and was let back in. I know Ahmed Johnson eliminated himself in '97. And I think Kane in '99?
|
|
|
Post by Yambag Jones on Mar 2, 2015 18:09:40 GMT -5
Well, you're right about one thing - none of us will ever hear Test complaining about not being officially eliminated from the Rumble match.
|
|