mtime989
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Dec 27, 2017 15:51:56 GMT -5
Posts: 53 
|
Post by mtime989 on Mar 21, 2019 22:38:33 GMT -5
As the years go on, I feel that the title shot (main event) Wrestlemania stipulation for the Royal Rumble has run its course, and is ruining the actual rumble match. With so much emphasis on marketing large name partipants in title matches at Wrestlemania to sell tickets, the rumble match has gotten to the point of being very predictable. It’s billed as anyone could win it, but for years one could look at the lineup an realize only about 5 wrestlers would have a chance at being considered made the winner.
At this point I would much rather it be treated along the lines of MITB. With the winner getting a title shot at anytime. Doing so would allow WWE to take a chance on possibly moving a mid-carder up to main event status. Tieing Wrestlemania to the rumble winner has too much investment and money involved for the company to take any risks on possibly hot shorting someone into main event status.
|
|
China Claus
Main Eventer
I can feeel your sensitivity
Joined on: Apr 17, 2012 20:05:15 GMT -5
Posts: 2,737
|
Post by China Claus on Mar 21, 2019 22:52:13 GMT -5
Isn't that the whole point of the Rumble? The winner automatically goes to WrestleMania for a title shot?
Yeah, there's "about 5 wrestlers having a chance of being considered the winner" as you said. It's always been like that.
And as far as the MITB goes, if anything, they need to drop that whole "cash in, anywhere, anytime" concept. It's run it's course, and really hasn't produced anything good since Edge was the "Ultimate Opportunist" and RVD cashed in at One Night Stand.
The Rumble has been predictable at times, but it's just a classic at this point.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
|
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Mar 22, 2019 0:58:41 GMT -5
As the years go on, I feel that the title shot (main event) Wrestlemania stipulation for the Royal Rumble has run its course, and is ruining the actual rumble match. With so much emphasis on marketing large name partipants in title matches at Wrestlemania to sell tickets, the rumble match has gotten to the point of being very predictable. It’s billed as anyone could win it, but for years one could look at the lineup an realize only about 5 wrestlers would have a chance at being considered made the winner. At this point I would much rather it be treated along the lines of MITB. With the winner getting a title shot at anytime. Doing so would allow WWE to take a chance on possibly moving a mid-carder up to main event status. Tieing Wrestlemania to the rumble winner has too much investment and money involved for the company to take any risks on possibly hot shorting someone into main event status. Would you have rather supported Kofi winning the Rumble instead of Rollins? They'll both be in world title matches, so the outcome would have been the same. |
|
Thunder Chunky
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 1, 2010 21:57:30 GMT -5
Posts: 4,488
|
Post by Thunder Chunky on Mar 22, 2019 2:26:19 GMT -5
Isn't that the whole point of the Rumble? The winner automatically goes to WrestleMania for a title shot? Yeah, there's "about 5 wrestlers having a chance of being considered the winner" as you said. It's always been like that. And as far as the MITB goes, if anything, they need to drop that whole "cash in, anywhere, anytime" concept. It's run it's course, and really hasn't produced anything good since Edge was the "Ultimate Opportunist" and RVD cashed in at One Night Stand. The Rumble has been predictable at times, but it's just a classic at this point. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I agree mostly with the MITB point. The part I disagree with is that, it gave us the Rollins cash in on Reigns and Lesnar. Easily the third best cash in. The rest dont matter, and it's gotten worse now that we have a men and a women's match for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Mar 22, 2019 6:33:40 GMT -5
Nope. Rumble is the start of the road to WrestleMania. There are many things in wrestling that need fixing, but that isn’t one of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ahunter8056 on Mar 22, 2019 6:58:39 GMT -5
No, I'm afraid I don't agree with this at all. The winner getting a title shot at WrestleMania is what gives it it's high stakes. Taking that away would make no sense, even if they made it into a 2nd Money in the Bank (which would also take away from Money in the Bank).
I don't think it's run it's course at all. I think the concept is timeless.
The only thing about it that I do think needs to change, is ensuring that the winner of at least one match does main event. Even now they continue to promote the Royal Rumble as "the winner will get a World title match in the main event of WrestleMania!". Yet in recent years it seems that more often than not, the winner does not end up main eventing. The winners of the 2010, 2011, 2012, 2017, & 2018 Royal Rumble matches did not main event. It should not be that way for 2 years in a row, let alone 3. If they pick a Royal Rumble winner that is not a big enough star to main event WrestleMania, then that's their own poor judgement.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayrod2009 on Mar 22, 2019 7:31:51 GMT -5
Anyone feel wrestlers ruin wrestling?  Come on bud, the road to wrestlemania starts with the Rumble. Its a staple in WWE history. |
|
|
|
Post by kennyw86v2 on Mar 22, 2019 9:29:53 GMT -5
No, the title shot hasn't ruined it. Vince McMahon and his unwillingness to pull the trigger on upstarts, underdogs, and those that were not his golden boy creations have ruined it.
I'm a Rollins fan and I'm glad he now has this feather in his cap, but he didn't need to win to be the guy to fight Brock. It was all lining up perfect anyway.
Why couldn't someone like Big E win? Is he not a credible threat to Daniel Bryan? Along with the Kofi storyline going on, this would fit nicely. Why not Joe? Champion vs champion for the wwe title? Why not give Cesaro a damn chance for once?
As with everything wwe related, Vince is whats holding things back.
|
|
|
|
Post by kennyw86v2 on Mar 22, 2019 9:31:37 GMT -5
Isn't that the whole point of the Rumble? The winner automatically goes to WrestleMania for a title shot? Yeah, there's "about 5 wrestlers having a chance of being considered the winner" as you said. It's always been like that. And as far as the MITB goes, if anything, they need to drop that whole "cash in, anywhere, anytime" concept. It's run it's course, and really hasn't produced anything good since Edge was the "Ultimate Opportunist" and RVD cashed in at One Night Stand. The Rumble has been predictable at times, but it's just a classic at this point. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. No way. Rollins cash in was all time great. Saved that show from what it was gonna be remember as too. |
|
|
|
Post by MKSavage on Mar 22, 2019 10:54:11 GMT -5
Isn't that the whole point of the Rumble? The winner automatically goes to WrestleMania for a title shot? Yeah, there's "about 5 wrestlers having a chance of being considered the winner" as you said. It's always been like that. And as far as the MITB goes, if anything, they need to drop that whole "cash in, anywhere, anytime" concept. It's run it's course, and really hasn't produced anything good since Edge was the "Ultimate Opportunist" and RVD cashed in at One Night Stand. The Rumble has been predictable at times, but it's just a classic at this point. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Not originally. |
|
|
|
Post by Rated [R] NinJa on Mar 22, 2019 11:10:19 GMT -5
Nah but it did p*ss me off when the winner would have their title match as the opening match to WrestleMania.
|
|
|
|
Post by #DI-WHY? on Mar 22, 2019 11:12:22 GMT -5
And as far as the MITB goes, if anything, they need to drop that whole "cash in, anywhere, anytime" concept. It's run it's course, and really hasn't produced anything good since Edge was the "Ultimate Opportunist" and RVD cashed in at One Night Stand. Dude you really don’t think Ziggler, Rollins, and Orton’s cash ins provided some of the better moments in the past few years? |
|
|
|
Post by hbkjason on Mar 22, 2019 11:38:39 GMT -5
I have two main problems with the Royal Rumble, but the title shot is not one of them.
I hate having two Rumble matches on a show. I get we are in the womens revolution, but could they not have come up with a different concept for them> Maybe they could have brought back King of the Ring and called it Queen of the Ring and have that be their getting a title shot thing. The Royal Rumble was a special once a year thing, but the last year or so we have had five Rumble matches!
Also I hate how overbooked they are the way wrestlers will sit in the corner for what feels like forever while some spot is being done in the ring has taken out most of the fun from the Royal Rumble.
|
|
|
|
Post by LA Times on Mar 22, 2019 11:52:44 GMT -5
No, comedy rumbles (2011, 2012) and the WWE telling the fans "We know who's going to win, you know who's going to win and we don't care whether you like it or not"(2014, 2015) is ruining the rumble match
|
|
|
|
Post by ~*Young $ Money*~ on Mar 22, 2019 13:30:02 GMT -5
No, the title shot hasn't ruined it. Vince McMahon and his unwillingness to pull the trigger on upstarts, underdogs, and those that were not his golden boy creations have ruined it. I'm a Rollins fan and I'm glad he now has this feather in his cap, but he did it need to win to he the guy to fight Brock. It was all lining up perfect anyway. Why couldn't someone like Big E win? Is he not a credible threat to Daniel Bryan? Along with the Kofi storyline going on, this would fit nicely. Why not Joe? Champion vs champion for the wwe title? Why not give Cesaro a damn chance for once? As with everything wwe related, Vince is whats holding things back. You nailed it. Instead of Vince taking a risk with someone new and up and coming he always goes the sure route now and plays it safe |
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Mar 22, 2019 14:33:36 GMT -5
No, the title shot hasn't ruined it. Vince McMahon and his unwillingness to pull the trigger on upstarts, underdogs, and those that were not his golden boy creations have ruined it. I'm a Rollins fan and I'm glad he now has this feather in his cap, but he didn't need to win to be the guy to fight Brock. It was all lining up perfect anyway. Why couldn't someone like Big E win? Is he not a credible threat to Daniel Bryan? Along with the Kofi storyline going on, this would fit nicely. Why not Joe? Champion vs champion for the wwe title? Why not give Cesaro a damn chance for once? As with everything wwe related, Vince is whats holding things back. Everyone realised Cesaro didn’t have it about three singles pushed ago. |
|
Nev Jones
Mid-Carder
“Three letters say it all...WCW!”
Joined on: Jul 1, 2018 7:47:01 GMT -5
Posts: 262
|
Post by Nev Jones on Mar 22, 2019 14:49:18 GMT -5
No, I don’t agree, I’m afraid.
I love the 88-91 Rumbles where they were just for fun, but 92 really set the bar for what the match could be used for, hence introducing the title shot in 93. It works, it’s still fun, and we get a good (usually) build to the main event of WM.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheLastDude on Mar 22, 2019 14:49:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kennyw86v2 on Mar 22, 2019 15:27:43 GMT -5
No, the title shot hasn't ruined it. Vince McMahon and his unwillingness to pull the trigger on upstarts, underdogs, and those that were not his golden boy creations have ruined it. I'm a Rollins fan and I'm glad he now has this feather in his cap, but he didn't need to win to be the guy to fight Brock. It was all lining up perfect anyway. Why couldn't someone like Big E win? Is he not a credible threat to Daniel Bryan? Along with the Kofi storyline going on, this would fit nicely. Why not Joe? Champion vs champion for the wwe title? Why not give Cesaro a damn chance for once? As with everything wwe related, Vince is whats holding things back. Everyone realised Cesaro didn’t have it about three singles pushed ago. He never got half the push he could have a few years back. He has at least as much as Roman, Brock, or half the guys Vince loves. Could he carry a brand? Of course not. Could he be in some entertaining main event caliber feuds? Of course. |
|
|
|
Post by theoutlaw1999 on Mar 22, 2019 16:22:39 GMT -5
It's one of the main reasons why I hate 2 World titles. This whole rumble winner choosing a champion nonsense has been done to death and it defeats the whole purpose of the rumble.
When someone chooses a champion where does that leave the other title? Kofi's storyline is great but this is WM and the only way someone should have the right to challenge for the title is through the Royal Rumble.
|
|
![Rated [R] NinJa Avatar](http://storage.proboards.com/530008/avatar/IDIYNeRTVZulhCPXFiqx.png)
