|
|
Post by moneyman on Dec 9, 2008 5:08:51 GMT -5
In the latest Guinness Book of World Records they have a pointless fact involving the WWE. They stated that the most men to ever compete in a WWE Royal Rumble Match was 30, which happened in 2008. Thought that was weird considering every year there is 30 participants.
-Wrestlezone.com
If that really is in there........damn.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,224
|
Post by Mozenrath on Dec 9, 2008 5:14:04 GMT -5
What about when Ernest Miller had his assistant with him out there? Was he a scheduled participant? He got beat up, so I count him as participating.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Cokehead del Knife Fight on Dec 9, 2008 5:24:30 GMT -5
What about when Ernest Miller had his assistant with him out there? Was he a scheduled participant? He got beat up, so I count him as participating. What about the 2000 Rumble? An extra five people ran out during it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lunch Break Kid on Dec 9, 2008 5:52:08 GMT -5
I am sure there were 31 men in in the 88 rumble when Virgil entered at the end and Big John Studd tossed him out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Dec 9, 2008 5:55:14 GMT -5
Not only that, but the Rumble in 2008 did not have 30 people participate. Finlay got DQed before he even came out, so that Rumble only had 29.
|
|
BrianZane
Team Rocket
The Finest Fibers All
The Way From France
Host of Wrestling With Wregret
Posts: 972
|
Post by BrianZane on Dec 9, 2008 7:26:10 GMT -5
Maybe it was a typo and they wanted to mention the Royal Rumble with the FEWEST participants?
|
|
Jobes
Unicron
Posts: 3,199
|
Post by Jobes on Dec 9, 2008 13:18:33 GMT -5
Maybe WWE payed them to print it? Yeah, that's probably it...
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,319
|
Post by Push R Truth on Dec 9, 2008 13:24:52 GMT -5
Maybe it was a typo and they wanted to mention the Royal Rumble with the FEWEST participants? That rumble would be the one where Foley came out like 3 times. I think. |
|
|
|
Post by blef on Dec 9, 2008 13:31:04 GMT -5
The 91, 94 and 98 Rumbles only had 29 participants.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,996
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Dec 9, 2008 14:03:59 GMT -5
Yeah, I have no idea what was up with that. Someone is awfully confused at Guniness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2008 15:47:40 GMT -5
Maybe it was a typo and they wanted to mention the Royal Rumble with the FEWEST participants? That rumble would be the one where Foley came out like 3 times. I think. The First rumble in 1988 only had 20. |
|
nealo
Unicron
BRING IT BACK!!
Posts: 3,166
|
Post by nealo on Dec 9, 2008 15:53:23 GMT -5
I remember reading in guiness wprld records that Sttone Cold has won the WWF/E title more than anyone else
|
|
|
|
Post by The Curmudgeon on Dec 9, 2008 19:25:17 GMT -5
What about the Rumble where Giant Gonzalez came out and attacked Taker? He got in the ring and then left - so he was technically involved. 31 there.
|
|
Mr Captain Falcon
Dennis Stamp
So I could write anything in here and it'll be posted?
Posts: 4,689
|
Post by Mr Captain Falcon on Dec 9, 2008 20:46:52 GMT -5
World War 3 should be in that book. 3 Rings, 60 men. Imagine a WWE Royal Rumble styled World War 3. They may not have 60 men on the whole main roster, but bring in developmental people. Imagine how many people one could eliminate in one match or how long someone could last.
|
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Dec 9, 2008 20:49:52 GMT -5
Maybe WWE payed them to print it? Yeah, that's probably it... They just seem to throw random crap in there every year about wrestling. One year they did a focus on El Gigante since he was the "Tallest living wrestler". |
|
Eli
Team Rocket
Mutha licka!
Posts: 974
|
Post by Eli on Dec 9, 2008 22:08:02 GMT -5
Maybe they meant Largest Average Annual Amount of people in a royal rumble?
|
|
