Mick Foley's thoughts on the Rumble

[Widow's Peak]

Foley posted his thoughts on his Facebook page. Some good points here:

I'm not worried about this year's #‎Wrestlemania. I can envision a number of scenarios in which Roman Reigns and Brock Lesnar can have an epic confrontation. My suggestion to WWE in this match would be to step aside and let the fertile fields of Paul Heyman's mind run free. and allow Lesnar and Reigns to create the most exciting, physical match possible.
No, I'm not worried about Wrestlemania. But I m worried about the Rumble.

Eventually people get tired of finding out that the WWE Superstars they have supported with their cheers, their purchases, their signs, their follows and their likes aren't real Superstars - and little by little, those fans lose interest in WWE, find other interests, and become former WWE fans."

And something everyone can agree on:

One more thing. I've heard rumors that Mr McMahon is personally writing the recent Roman Reigns promos. If that's true, I'd like to personally address Mr McMahon.
Dear Vince,
Please stop - you're killing the poor guy,
Sincerely,
Mick Foley

Full thing here:

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}{Spoiler}

[mizzziggler]

Preach it, Mick!

[Hawk Hart]

Eventually people get tired of finding out that the WWE Superstars they have supported with their cheers, their purchases, their signs, their follows and their likes aren't real Superstars - and little by little, those fans lose interest in WWE, find other interests, and become former WWE fans."

There's so much truth to that. I pretty rarely buy WWE merch and when I do, it's for specific Superstars (Ziggler and Bryan, but I do have a Ryder shirt) and seeing that my favorites are rarely ever given the nod as being someone important makes me feel like WWE doesn't give much of a f*** what I, and like minded fans, want.

[Lupin the Third]

We want CM Punk.

Vince: "No, you don't want CM Punk. You want Sheamus."

F*** you, McMahon. I know what I want.

[Hawk Hart]

Jan 29, 2015 14:31:32 GMT -5 Lupin the Third said:

F*** you, McMahon. I know what I want.

This should be quoted for truth forever and ever.

[Deleted]

Here is what a lot people have been saying, being articulated by someone very close to the wrestling industry and knows what he's talking about.

So yeah, expect Vince and Co. to continue to stick their fingers in their ears and not listen.

[Bo Rida]

...I'm worried about the Rumble.

I wasn't mad after this year's Rumble. Instead, I was sad. Sad, because the Rumble, which has been one of the most entertaining WWE events of the year for so long, might just be in danger of becoming "just another show", and going the way of "Survivor Series" as a good idea that runs it course and ceases to be relevant.

What was once the start of "The Road to Wrestlemania" has now become a roadblock to the good will and excitement needed for a truly memorable Wrestlemania atmosphere.

Before the rumble I created the thread "Is the Royal Rumble bulletproof?" so I find it interesting to read Mick's take on that subject.

officialfan.proboards.com/thread/516168/royal-rumble-bulletproof?page=1

[Deleted]

Mick is just another smark that's part of that vocal minority.

I bet he couldn't do a simple collar and elbow.

[Drillbit Taylor]

At least hes not throwing a tantrum this year breaking TVs

[TheSchattenjager]

Mick Foley can come back to me when he has actually laced up a pair of boots. Wait.

[HMARK Center]

I keep on coming back to it, but I think Mick's very good point goes right back to keep saying: that the WM title match stipulation does more harm than good to the Rumble, especially in years like this where the Rumble was clearly a "coronation" moment for whomever is going to play the role of Beast-Killer against Brock Lesnar.

When you attach "this match makes you a main eventer" to the stipulation, it means that only a select few people can win; WWE would not risk, in kayfabe or in real life, Wrestlemania's main event on a midcarder winning.

This in and of itself does not need to be a major problem: the Rumble can still be a showcase spot for numerous guys who might never main event, but who nonetheless may have important roles to play on the card. I often call back to the 1991 Rumble, where Rick Martel and Greg Valentine both lasted a very long time (something like 45+ minutes each); neither man was a WWF title contender, and Valentine was basically a jobber to the stars at that point, but it meant that on future episodes of Superstars or Wrestling Challenge, or on their PPV matches, the announcers would mention their great showings at the Rumble that year as a reason to take them seriously.

Yet as time has gone on, that concept seems increasingly lost. Yeah, Randy Orton lasted a long time in 2004 when they wanted to build him up, but it was too obvious what they were doing: "Hey, look, this guy is going to main event soon; we're not being obvious at all, right?!". The Rumble feels more and more like a "midcarders need not apply" event, but they still put midcarders in, anyway, or even joke entrants, which makes the whole WM stipulation ridiculous.

Now it's ruining the Rumble because the match has become a statement of who the company wants to get behind (Batista, Reigns), or more to the point, who they DON'T want to get behind (Bryan, Ziggler, et. al.). Once it starts coming off like that, the event becomes too meta; suddenly whoever wins and loses is a matter of determining the overall health of the company, rather than a fun event that lets you suspend your disbelief for another hour.

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2015 15:17:50 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

I keep on coming back to it, but I think Mick's very good point goes right back to keep saying: that the WM title match stipulation does more harm than good to the Rumble, especially in years like this where the Rumble was clearly a "coronation" moment for whomever is going to play the role of Beast-Killer against Brock Lesnar.

When you attach "this match makes you a main eventer" to the stipulation, it means that only a select few people can win; WWE would not risk, in kayfabe or in real life, Wrestlemania's main event on a midcarder winning.

This in and of itself does not need to be a major problem: the Rumble can still be a showcase spot for numerous guys who might never main event, but who nonetheless may have important roles to play on the card. I often call back to the 1991 Rumble, where Rick Martel and Greg Valentine both lasted a very long time (something like 45+ minutes each); neither man was a WWF title contender, and Valentine was basically a jobber to the stars at that point, but it meant that on future episodes of Superstars or Wrestling Challenge, or on their PPV matches, the announcers would mention their great showings at the Rumble that year as a reason to take them seriously.

Yet as time has gone on, that concept seems increasingly lost. Yeah, Randy Orton lasted a long time in 2004 when they wanted to build him up, but it was too obvious what they were doing: "Hey, look, this guy is going to main event soon; we're not being obvious at all, right?!". The Rumble feels more and more like a "midcarders need not apply" event, but they still put midcarders in, anyway, or even joke entrants, which makes the whole WM stipulation ridiculous.

Now it's ruining the Rumble because the match has become a statement of who the company wants to get behind (Batista, Reigns), or more to the point, who they DON'T want to get behind (Bryan, Ziggler, et. al.). Once it starts coming off like that, the event becomes too meta; suddenly whoever wins and loses is a matter of determining the overall health of the company, rather than a fun event that lets you suspend your disbelief for another hour.

JR has said the Rumble would be more fun if they removed the WrestleMania stipulation from it too.

[RIHT]

I agree with what Mick Foley said about losing interest after seeing favorites wasted. I feel fans can only take so much disappointment from a median of entertainment before getting tired of it and giving it up.

[Goon]

Maybe they should have the winner of the Rumble get a MITB briefcase instead. That way there still would be something at stake, but they wouldn't have to set the Wrestlemania main event in stone by the Royal Rumble.

[HMARK Center]

Honestly, I think they should revamp the entire concept of Wrestlemania. If WM is supposed to be WWEs Super Bowl, then shouldn't only the best be showcased on it? They should come up with a kayfabe'd system where people have to earn their way onto the WM card, just as a sports team needs to earn its spot in the finals of its respective league. Have a "WrestleMania Committee" that looks at wrestlers' matches over a certain length of time, tallies wins and losses and quality, that judges which feuds are worthy of being showcased, etc. Make it part of the storyline that just being on the WM card means you get a huge pay day, increased attention, etc.; make being on the card a goal or title in and of itself.

Then, you can start making the titles mean a bit more by making the belts "get on WM automatically" tickets. The Rumble winner could get a guaranteed spot, along with their choice of match/stipulation/whatever, so that if a guy in a major feud wins he might choose something like a cage match against his hated rival. Then if somebody a bit more random wins the Rumble, it's not the end of the world, and it could actually make things a bit more unpredictable and interesting.

[Deleted]

I'm going to disagree with him on the front that I really don't see a chance in hell that Reigns / Lesnar will be a good match. Reigns has a terrible track record for singles matches and most of Brock's matches since coming back haven't been very good either.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Jan 29, 2015 14:25:11 GMT -5 Hawk Hart said:

Eventually people get tired of finding out that the WWE Superstars they have supported with their cheers, their purchases, their signs, their follows and their likes aren't real Superstars - and little by little, those fans lose interest in WWE, find other interests, and become former WWE fans."

There's so much truth to that. I pretty rarely buy WWE merch and when I do, it's for specific Superstars (Ziggler and Bryan, but I do have a Ryder shirt) and seeing that my favorites are rarely ever given the nod as being someone important makes me feel like WWE doesn't give much of a f*** what I, and like minded fans, want.

My merch purchases from WWE in the past year Macho, Hulk, Warrior, Punk, and from his own website Bret Hart.

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2015 1:51:11 GMT -5 Cranjis McBasketball said:

Jan 29, 2015 14:25:11 GMT -5 Hawk Hart said:

There's so much truth to that. I pretty rarely buy WWE merch and when I do, it's for specific Superstars (Ziggler and Bryan, but I do have a Ryder shirt) and seeing that my favorites are rarely ever given the nod as being someone important makes me feel like WWE doesn't give much of a f*** what I, and like minded fans, want.

My merch purchases from WWE in the past year Macho, Hulk, Warrior, Punk, and from his own website Bret Hart.

The only one I've done in the past year is Bryan but if you go through my history, my list includes a legend like Mr. Kennedy.

Actually dunno where the hell that shirt is, not seen it in years.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Jan 30, 2015 3:39:18 GMT -5 Lizuka #BLM said:

Jan 30, 2015 1:51:11 GMT -5 Cranjis McBasketball said:

My merch purchases from WWE in the past year Macho, Hulk, Warrior, Punk, and from his own website Bret Hart.

The only one I've done in the past year is Bryan but if you go through my history, my list includes a legend like Mr. Kennedy.

Actually dunno where the hell that shirt is, not seen it in years.

I just like making a point. I know they're not pouring over my purchases concerned, but it's fun knowing my dollar is going to the guys I actually support. Even if they only get like 75 cents a shirt or whatever Punk said.

[Oh Cry Me a Screwball]

Jan 29, 2015 15:20:49 GMT -5 @ihateeverything said:

Jan 29, 2015 15:17:50 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

I keep on coming back to it, but I think Mick's very good point goes right back to keep saying: that the WM title match stipulation does more harm than good to the Rumble, especially in years like this where the Rumble was clearly a "coronation" moment for whomever is going to play the role of Beast-Killer against Brock Lesnar.

When you attach "this match makes you a main eventer" to the stipulation, it means that only a select few people can win; WWE would not risk, in kayfabe or in real life, Wrestlemania's main event on a midcarder winning.

This in and of itself does not need to be a major problem: the Rumble can still be a showcase spot for numerous guys who might never main event, but who nonetheless may have important roles to play on the card. I often call back to the 1991 Rumble, where Rick Martel and Greg Valentine both lasted a very long time (something like 45+ minutes each); neither man was a WWF title contender, and Valentine was basically a jobber to the stars at that point, but it meant that on future episodes of Superstars or Wrestling Challenge, or on their PPV matches, the announcers would mention their great showings at the Rumble that year as a reason to take them seriously.

Yet as time has gone on, that concept seems increasingly lost. Yeah, Randy Orton lasted a long time in 2004 when they wanted to build him up, but it was too obvious what they were doing: "Hey, look, this guy is going to main event soon; we're not being obvious at all, right?!". The Rumble feels more and more like a "midcarders need not apply" event, but they still put midcarders in, anyway, or even joke entrants, which makes the whole WM stipulation ridiculous.

Now it's ruining the Rumble because the match has become a statement of who the company wants to get behind (Batista, Reigns), or more to the point, who they DON'T want to get behind (Bryan, Ziggler, et. al.). Once it starts coming off like that, the event becomes too meta; suddenly whoever wins and loses is a matter of determining the overall health of the company, rather than a fun event that lets you suspend your disbelief for another hour.

JR has said the Rumble would be more fun if they removed the WrestleMania stipulation from it too.

I heavily disagree with this, because the stakes involved are really what glues everything together.

Why would guys who draw early numbers want to stay in the match so damn long when someone just as talented as they are can waltz in as #30 and clean house? Why would guys like Bubba Ray Dudley, JBL, Kharma, Kevin Nash, among others, pick this night to make a return and attempt a comeback, possibly the only chance they will ever have again of being a main eventer? Why would future superstars in NXT like Bo Dallas or Rusev choose this night to make their first splash on the main roster? Why bother with the PPV at all if it's just a meaningless battle royal? It's because it's the one night of the year where any one of 30 guys can earn a shot at the title at the biggest stage of the year.

Sure, in a given year, only a handful of those names have any realistic chance of going to the main event, but that doesn't have to take away from how good the concept can be. Even this year, we had four guys that had enough momentum to win the match, and although the least appealing and most predictable of the bunch prevailed, it doesn't mean it's going to be this way every year.