|
|
Post by Eat Defeat. on Jan 13, 2010 18:33:05 GMT -5
1999 - I was 7 years old and Austin was the man.... enough said.
|
|
|
|
Post by layton on Jan 14, 2010 0:17:06 GMT -5
1999 was pointless. They should have had Vince and Austin in a different match.
2009 wasn't very good. Actually, other than 2007, the Rumbles in the second half of the 2000s weren't great to me.
I am a fan of the 1995 Rumble. I completely understand why people don't like it, because of the only lasting 38 or 39 minutes and the lack of stars. It was a great story, though. HBK and Bulldog were the first two in and last two out. Good stuff. It really put HBK on the map.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oskanowski on Jan 14, 2010 1:25:36 GMT -5
2007 was an Okay one. But 2008-2009 was boring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Wrestling on Jan 14, 2010 18:29:07 GMT -5
I forget most of them but I didn't like 2009. Too predictable. 2006 wasn't much either, hated how it wasn't the main event. Yeah, because we all knew Matt Hardy was going to attack Jeff instead of Christian, and I also remember everyone saying Rob Van Dam would be at the Rumble, oh, and Michaels was going to attack both, JBL and Cena.  I hate when people say its predictable when the only things that were predictable about this match were Cena retaining and Orton winning the Rumble. |
|
wakeman
Superstar
Joined on: Sept 18, 2005 1:47:05 GMT -5
Posts: 936
|
Post by wakeman on Jan 16, 2010 22:12:44 GMT -5
It's 1995. The 60 second intervals were brutal. I don't even like the 90 second ones. It should be 2 minutes like it used to be. You're guaranteed an hour that way.
|
|
wwfalex04: OUC?
Main Eventer
I kNow This, Because I'm A Smark
Joined on: May 12, 2002 1:56:15 GMT -5
Posts: 2,722
|
Post by wwfalex04: OUC? on Jan 17, 2010 1:17:33 GMT -5
1995 was pretty hard to sit through -- I have Vol II-IV of the Anthology and I'm making it a must to sit through every year, but this one was by far one of the worst. The Rumble match itself was horrid. The opening bouts were nothing that spectacular -- and the constant interfering during the Bret Hart/Diesel match killed all the heat the match built up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ldeow on Jan 17, 2010 2:41:30 GMT -5
97 i think it was god awful I personally enjoyed 1997. It had lots of twists and set some good story line's up. There have been much worse. |
|
|
|
Post by DTP. on Jan 17, 2010 12:57:11 GMT -5
I don't get why people thought the 2000 Rumble was one of the best; sure, it was good, but it was DEFINITELY going to come down to The Rock or Big Show winning. Everybody else just were so obviously unfitting of the mold.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eat Defeat. on Jan 18, 2010 1:59:42 GMT -5
I was 7 years old and had no doubt Rock would win, I still loved the ending, great event.
|
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Jan 18, 2010 2:02:53 GMT -5
Lately they've lost the electricity and excitement they once had. But I guess you could say that about all WWE PPVs. It really hurts when the "Big Four" don't even feel special any more (I wish they would go back to brand-specific PPVs, but they had a lot more roster depth in those days).
|
|
|
|
Post by Ldeow on Jan 18, 2010 4:18:05 GMT -5
WWE has killed the feeling to all the belts and every PPV except Wretlemania.
|
|
|
|
Post by LA Times on Jan 20, 2010 14:35:26 GMT -5
1995-One minute intervals
1999-The only thing worst than Stone Cold winning the RR 3 years in a row is Vince McMahon coming in at #2(which is the same thing as coming in at #1) and winning it
2008-Spots were wasted on Hornswaggle, Rowdy Roddy Piper and Superfly
|
|
