|
|
Post by Scotty on Nov 30, 2011 17:24:32 GMT -5
Thank god, 40 was a overkill
|
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Nov 30, 2011 20:43:26 GMT -5
I don't mind it being 30 again.
The 40 man Rumble a had a lot of people I didn't even care for so if it was 30 a lot of them would have not been in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ~*Young $ Money*~ on Nov 30, 2011 21:25:25 GMT -5
I enjoy it being 30. 40 was to much imo. I think 30 is a perfect number where it gives you a nice amount of upper mid card talent with main event talent where it could be a surprise winner and not alot of jobbers like someone else has already said. We really don't need to see 10 surprise entrants that you know how no shot of winning.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 14:40:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2011 22:06:35 GMT -5
I wasn't a fan of 40 men.. 30 is fine.. Just needs a legend's return
at each Royal Rumble makes it exciting..
|
|
yeetman13
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 5, 2011 1:02:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,537
|
Post by yeetman13 on Nov 30, 2011 23:37:50 GMT -5
i am indifferent.. i like the rumble no matter what and 40 wasnt too bad.. wasnt too long since it was 1.5 min intervals.. id still love a 30 man rumble with 2 min intervals!
|
|
|
|
Post by kazoosandstreamers on Nov 30, 2011 23:51:08 GMT -5
40 was cool and all, but I think 30 is perfect. They could bring back the 40 man one every few years if they like.
I want JBL to make an apperance this year.
|
|
