|
|
Post by gordon on Jan 31, 2010 17:50:27 GMT -5
I've decided to exclude 1988 due to only featuring 20 wrestlers.
It's a pretty tough decision. 1993 seemed quite weak, 1995 as well. 1998, 1999 and 2000 were too.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Old School™ on Jan 31, 2010 17:52:19 GMT -5
Hands down, 1995. Probably the worst Royal Rumble in history.
|
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Jan 31, 2010 18:02:09 GMT -5
Hands down, 1995. Probably the worst Royal Rumble in history. 95 was pretty terrible....and when did you get de-modded and why did you not give it to me  haha |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 14:46:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2010 18:13:22 GMT -5
'95 as well.
Great for Michaels to win, but apart from that, woeful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Old School™ on Jan 31, 2010 18:59:50 GMT -5
Hands down, 1995. Probably the worst Royal Rumble in history. 95 was pretty terrible....and when did you get de-modded and why did you not give it to me haha I got de-modded earlier on today. It was totally my fault. I goofed up. I wasn't thinking right and I mentioned some stuff that I shouldn't have. About watching tonight's Rumble for free and what-not. I didn't even know that was against the rules, even just by mentioning it. It's not like I posted a link or whatever. I just happened to say that I would be watching tonight's Royal Rumble for free and that's it and I got canned. Pretty strict around here, that's for sure. Oh well. It's done. Nothing I can about it. I'm glad I'm not the MOD anymore anyway. Never wanted to be in the first place. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 14:46:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2010 19:19:58 GMT -5
95-99 were mostly mid carders and jobbers with 3-5 main-eventers in each. That's mainly because WCW had most of the WWE's guys and WWE was is a re-building process. Notice huge names such as Rock, HHH, Mankind, & Austin were all rookies at that time. I pick 1995 as the least star studded too simply because it's a fact. The only headlining guys in it were HBK, Luger & Bulldog. I've always hated the 1999 rumble though.
|
|
|
|
Post by tnafan17: The Total Package on Jan 31, 2010 23:38:06 GMT -5
Gotta go with 1995
|
|
|
|
Post by carly1988 on Feb 1, 2010 0:00:14 GMT -5
95 was pretty terrible....and when did you get de-modded and why did you not give it to me haha I got de-modded earlier on today. It was totally my fault. I goofed up. I wasn't thinking right and I mentioned some stuff that I shouldn't have. About watching tonight's Rumble for free and what-not. I didn't even know that was against the rules, even just by mentioning it. It's not like I posted a link or whatever. I just happened to say that I would be watching tonight's Royal Rumble for free and that's it and I got canned. Pretty strict around here, that's for sure. Oh well. It's done. Nothing I can about it. I'm glad I'm not the MOD anymore anyway. Never wanted to be in the first place. That sucks for ya man, sorry to hear it. I didnt think it was against the rules mentioning it but I knew it was if you posted links and stuff. Sorry to hear that but hopefully you wont be a stranger around here |
|
|
|
Post by Ldeow on Feb 1, 2010 3:49:43 GMT -5
That is stupid that you got de-modded for that Mr. Old School.
But yea easily 95.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cass on Feb 1, 2010 4:42:24 GMT -5
I'd have to say 99 easily. Most of the first half minus Austin, who wasn't even in the ring for more than half the match, were jobbers or mid-carders. The only hope for a big star was Kane who quickly eliminated himself. Then there was Owen Hart who was really doing nothing and wasn't a big star anymore at the time. So Austin was really the only star worth note in that rumble.
|
|
|
|
Post by LeighD on Feb 1, 2010 10:08:12 GMT -5
Hands down, 1995. Probably the worst Royal Rumble in history. Its like hearing myself talk. |
|
|
|
Post by DTP. on Feb 1, 2010 11:16:12 GMT -5
Well with the 2000 Rumble, it could only really get down to Rock, Show or Kane, tbh.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 14:46:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2010 14:19:51 GMT -5
easily 1995.it was a dire outing for all concerned IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by BrIaNMeRcY on Feb 1, 2010 21:30:46 GMT -5
1995 simply because of the roster the WWF had at the time.
|
|
