Royal Rumble Question.....

[mrrotten]

When did they start having the winner go for the belt at Wrestlemania? Because I was watching the 1989 RR, and Macho Man was in the match, and he was the champ.

And on a side note, while watching that one and the 1992 RR, I don't know how Hulk Hogan was a good guy. He gets eliminated legally in the '89 RR, gets upset that he lost and pulls down the top rope so that the Bossman gets eliminated, then ignores the refs and tries to get back in. Then in the '92 one, he gets eliminated by Sid at the end legally, and starts moaning about losing his chance to win back "his title", so he costs Sid his chance by holding on to him.

[Agent P]

1993

[Jiren]

Hogan was such a whiner, And it's not just Rumbles either

[H-Fist]

Yeah, 1993 was the first year they did it. It was a solid vehicle for trucking Yokozuna to the main event of WrestleMania and the concept worked, especially with the double-elimination ending to the 1994 Rumble.

And yeah, Hogan was really a jerk of a hero. He alienated his friends, was a glory hound and a sore loser, and never accepted that anyone should have the spotlight without him in it. His character, of course.

[Nickybojelais]

The Hogan Rumble win when he eliminates Mr Perfect has always bothered me, with no title stipulation on the line what did Hogan have to gain by winning it?

A Perfect win however raises him into the upper elite with a (sort of) victory over Hogan and leads nicely into a credible feud between the two. Seemed like such a wasted chance.

[mrrotten]

I didn't watch the whole '89 RR, but I saw Tony Schiavone was one of the announcers. The only question I've got is, did he saw that night was the greatest night in the history of the sport? Because that would make '89 arguably the greatest RR of all times.

[johnnyk9]

Hogan winning in 1990 was to set up him and Warrior, Studd winning in 89 was Vince being nice only for Studd to walk out on him a few months later, didn't do much for Duggan in 88, Hogan winning in 91 had to happen

[Agent P]

Feb 24, 2010 18:33:25 GMT -5 mrrotten said:

I didn't watch the whole '89 RR, but I saw Tony Schiavone was one of the announcers. The only question I've got is, did he saw that night was the greatest night in the history of the sport? Because that would make '89 arguably the greatest RR of all times.

No. 89 was still Gorilla and Jesse. 90 was Tony and Jesse and no. No he didn't say that.

[Deleted]

Feb 24, 2010 16:49:42 GMT -5 Nickybojelais said:

The Hogan Rumble win when he eliminates Mr Perfect has always bothered me, with no title stipulation on the line what did Hogan have to gain by winning it?

A Perfect win however raises him into the upper elite with a (sort of) victory over Hogan and leads nicely into a credible feud between the two. Seemed like such a wasted chance.

Having Perfect win the Rumble only to lose to Beefcake at WM doesn't make much sense.

The Hogan win was designed to 1) start the Warrior feud, and 2) make him look strong for the inevitable WM 6 match. Plus it was going to send the crowd home happy. Who the heck wanted to see Perfect win it, other than smarks who want to travel back in time?

The Rumble back then was pretty much like an exhibition. Studd won it a year before, Duggan the year before that, and I remember reading that Andre was going to win the 91 Rumble had he been healthy enough to compete. Only in 1992-beyond did the winner actually matter from a storyline standpoint.

But yes, 1993 was the first year. I still hate that stip though.

[Agent P]

Why do you hate that stip? You said it yourself that before 92 it was just like an exhibition. At least with the stip it has some meaning.

[Deleted]

Feb 25, 2010 10:36:30 GMT -5 Agent P said:

Why do you hate that stip? You said it yourself that before 92 it was just like an exhibition. At least with the stip it has some meaning.

Ehh, I don't think it is really necessary. A WrestleMania main event should be built-up naturally; it shouldn't need a stipulation to determine the main event. Hogan/Savage was built up for over a year prior to WM 5, so Studd winning it had no bearing on the storyline. Hogan/Warrior was built AT Royal Rumble, which is fine, and Hogan was the champion anyway. Hogan winning in 1991 didn't make the feud with Slaugher any more or less meaningful. It was the American Hero trying to take out the Iraqi turncoat. Duggan winning in 88, despite the event not being on PPV, didn't catapult him to #1 contender status. It was an exhibition. A fun night for the audience who got to see big stars and didn't know who would end up winning.

The 1993-beyond Rumble stip a nice concept at first, but it makes the list of winners every year very predictable and is not really necessary if proper build-up is done for WM (as it should be). Just create an imaginery goal for the winner. It is already assumed, or at least was assumed, that winners would get the "winning share of the purse", just emphasis that.

I understand why people like the stip, but I was never a big fan. Just my opinion.

[Nickybojelais]

The title match stipulation at Mania effectively backs the writers into a corner, have a top name win it and its a "boring predictable name in the main event of Wrestlemania again", have a Rey Mysterio win it and it "devalues the Rumble and the main event of Wrestlemania"

I think it would be much more exciting if the winner of the Royal rumble won a guaranteed title match at any time of their choosing rather than at Mania, it takes a potnetial list of winners from only 4 or 5 and expands the likely winners to about half of the fentrants.

[mrrotten]

Feb 25, 2010 12:00:46 GMT -5 Nickybojelais said:

The title match stipulation at Mania effectively backs the writers into a corner, have a top name win it and its a "boring predictable name in the main event of Wrestlemania again", have a Rey Mysterio win it and it "devalues the Rumble and the main event of Wrestlemania"

I think it would be much more exciting if the winner of the Royal rumble won a guaranteed title match at any time of their choosing rather than at Mania, it takes a potnetial list of winners from only 4 or 5 and expands the likely winners to about half of the fentrants.

If that was the case, so long Money in the Bank.

[Ultimo Chocula]

I watched the first five or six Rumbles in a row a few months back and each time I had the exact same thought: if this were a real event Haku would be the winner every single time.

Hogan has ALWAYS been a sore loser. Not just in the Rumble, but in other battle royals if he gets tossed he always goes back in and eliminates whoever threw him out (I believe he did this to Tugboat on SNME once). Then there's the "Look at the dollars falling out of his pocket!" rant after he was screwed out of the title by M$M and Andre. He had a legit beef but the way he did that promo he came off as a little bitchy bitch. Back in the day I never understood how anyone could root for the guy, he was Terrell, Kobe, and Kanye rolled up into one orange bald guy.

[horsemen4ever]

Hogan being a sore loser, remember when he literally cried and wined after losing the title to Andre. Also don't forget the 87 Survivor Series, he took away Andre's moment of glory.

That is why I loved the Hollywood Hogan character, it is more natural for a villain to be selfish and egotestical than a hero.

[King Devitt]

Feb 25, 2010 18:43:13 GMT -5 Ultimo Chocula said:

I watched the first five or six Rumbles in a row a few months back and each time I had the exact same thought: if this were a real event Haku would be the winner every single time.

Hogan has ALWAYS been a sore loser. Not just in the Rumble, but in other battle royals if he gets tossed he always goes back in and eliminates whoever threw him out (I believe he did this to Tugboat on SNME once). Then there's the "Look at the dollars falling out of his pocket!" rant after he was screwed out of the title by M$M and Andre. He had a legit beef but the way he did that promo he came off as a little bitchy bitch. Back in the day I never understood how anyone could root for the guy, he was Terrell, Kobe, and Kanye rolled up into one orange bald guy.

yeah i could never understand it either. even so much as the way he wrestled w/ eye gouging, back scratching, and acting all whiney to the refs when he didn't get three never screamed good guy to me.

that and he came out to "Real American". jeesh, what does that say about us.

["Hollywood" Cactus Matt]

Feb 25, 2010 7:18:34 GMT -5 johnnyk9 said:

Hogan winning in 1990 was to set up him and Warrior, Studd winning in 89 was Vince being nice only for Studd to walk out on him a few months later, didn't do much for Duggan in 88, Hogan winning in 91 had to happen

Didn't Studd find out he had Hodgkin's Disease, and that's when he "walked out"? I could have my time-frames mixed up, but I could swear he didn't live much longer after his Rumble win, because of the cancer.

[repomark]

Although it was not official, the 1991 Rumble could be argued was the first time as Hogan became No 1 Contender by winning and went on to WM7 to face Slaughter. However, as many have said the first time they did the official "winner goes to face champ at WM" stip was 1993 with Yokozuna.

[Agent P]

Feb 27, 2010 15:30:45 GMT -5 "Hollywood" Cactus Matt said:

Feb 25, 2010 7:18:34 GMT -5 johnnyk9 said:

Hogan winning in 1990 was to set up him and Warrior, Studd winning in 89 was Vince being nice only for Studd to walk out on him a few months later, didn't do much for Duggan in 88, Hogan winning in 91 had to happen

Didn't Studd find out he had Hodgkin's Disease, and that's when he "walked out"? I could have my time-frames mixed up, but I could swear he didn't live much longer after his Rumble win, because of the cancer.

John actually lived until 95.