|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Jun 26, 2010 9:18:45 GMT -5
Better then hearing "ladies and gentleman..the following contest is a DIVAS TAG TEAM MATCH!" What if its a Diva's Battle Royal? I hate the fact that you just have to touch the floor in those no top rope rule.
|
|
|
Post by quantum on Jun 26, 2010 11:46:21 GMT -5
Im not a fan of battle royals either. Its just a lot of standing around and pushing one another in corners and such until the final few people are left. Ya same here just looks like a big clusterf*** and it's very hard to keep track of who's in when there are around 8 or more guys in the ring (as others have said). Plus the getting thrown over the top rope to win can be a rather boring finish to the match. I love Rumbles and feel since the late 80's when the Royal Rumble was made a yearly PPV (WWF/E at least) they should have done away with the Battle Royal and replaced it with a yearly Royal Rumble. WCW had the massive battle royal each year (60 men three rings) and it was almost impossible to keep track and was just a big mess. It really was no way to highlight or main event a PPV like a Rumble is.
|
|
|
Post by i.Sarita.com on Jun 26, 2010 12:02:51 GMT -5
They've been the same spots for the last 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by wildojinx on Jun 26, 2010 16:25:19 GMT -5
I love BRs because you get to see guys who otherwise would never face each other due to their spot on the card or because theyre both heels/faces. I mean, where else are you going to see chavo vs john morrison for example?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2010 16:39:00 GMT -5
I like the Royal Rumble but not battle royals in general. The Royal Rumble, with the intervals of time, the countdown, the predetermined order, the mystery of who's going to be number 30, the side story of how long #1 and #2 will stay in, the idea that new people will debut or older wrestlers will show up again, all that just flat out works for me. Pat Patterson has one hell of a wrestling mind.
|
|
|
Post by "Playboy" Don Douglas on Jun 26, 2010 17:32:19 GMT -5
I like the Royal Rumble but not battle royals in general. The Royal Rumble, with the intervals of time, the countdown, the predetermined order, the mystery of who's going to be number 30, the side story of how long #1 and #2 will stay in, the idea that new people will debut or older wrestlers will show up again, all that just flat out works for me. Pat Patterson has one hell of a wrestling mind. Didn't they do a similar match in the San Francisco territory back in the day when Patterson was a main event star there? Seems like they even did it in January.
|
|
"Hollywood" Cactus Matt
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
You couldn't ask for a better custom title!
How do you spell "Goddess"? C-H-R-I-S-T-Y!
Posts: 15,300
|
Post by "Hollywood" Cactus Matt on Jun 26, 2010 17:36:07 GMT -5
The only time I dislike a battle royal is when a title is at stake. (the exception, of course, being the 1992 Royal Rumble.) I've said before, how does throwing someone over the top rope equate to beating him by pin or submission to win a title? If that was the only criteria, the Berzerker would/should have won the aforementioned '92 RR and it would have been him as WWF champion instead of Ric Flair.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Jun 26, 2010 17:41:40 GMT -5
If there were an internet only battle royal ppv where by you the customer could choose what camera you followed the action on, you could fixate in on your guy or your tandem ect. This is the only possible way to make them watchable until they thin out. Wrestling booking 101 tells us that in battle royals you have to let your stars get thier spots in so there are times where you get multipul eliminations so two guys can brawl till the next guy comes in. There also has to be a point where there are 10+ in the ring. This part kills momentum until eliminations start happening in quick succession
|
|