Post by Unaffiliated on Feb 3, 2010 0:41:21 GMT -5
I think the WWE really needs to start putting in more regulations towards the winner of the MITB. It gives the holder too easy a world title win by allowing the "cash-in anytime you want" which is now always used. The Royal Rumble winner, on the other hand, will have an actual match at a time not to their choosing, and therefore, at a lesser advantage to win compared to the MITB holder.
Comparing the way both are won, surely this is unfair to the Royal Rumble winner. MITB participants have a one-in-eight shot at winning it while Royal Rumble participants have a one-in-thirty shot. Winning the Royal Rumble is also treated as more prestigious, so isn't it kind of short-changing the winner in that the MITB holder gets a much easier title opportunity?
Come to think of it, same can be said of the inevitable tournament that would determine the number one contender to the other world title that is not being challenged by the Rumble winner.
Comparing the way both are won, surely this is unfair to the Royal Rumble winner. MITB participants have a one-in-eight shot at winning it while Royal Rumble participants have a one-in-thirty shot. Winning the Royal Rumble is also treated as more prestigious, so isn't it kind of short-changing the winner in that the MITB holder gets a much easier title opportunity?
Come to think of it, same can be said of the inevitable tournament that would determine the number one contender to the other world title that is not being challenged by the Rumble winner.
