Established stars winning rumble

[Evil Homer]

I hate it when people like Cena or Batista win the rumble , IMO it should always be a rising star that wins it

[Clawley Race]

Yes. Sure it'd be cool for someone to get a big push with a huge win. At the same time, its absurd to think that a midcarder is ready to jump to the Main Event of WRESTLEMANIA EVERY single year...

[Essential1]

No@RisingStars.

I love them as much as anyone but if Sami Zayn or Finn Balor won the Royal Rumble and main evented mania I would have a feeling like it would hurt them more than if they had not.

[Evil Homer]

May 24, 2015 22:59:17 GMT -5 Essential1 said:

No@RisingStars.

I love them as much as anyone but if Sami Zayn or Finn Balor won the Royal Rumble and main evented mania I would have a feeling like it would hurt them more than if they had not.

the alternative to that being them winning the mitb ?

[fw91]

depends on the year and booking.

[molson5]

I'm not a fan of any "always" rule in professional wrestling booking. Top guys never winning one of the biggest matches of the year is like big guys never winning battle royals.

[Reflecto]

Established stars winning the Rumble is fine enough- if you have too many rising stars win the Rumble, either the Wrestlemania main event means nothing because it's always Champ vs. midcarder, or the "Winner of the Rumble goes to Wrestlemania" thing has to be taken out, and then the Rumble ceases to mean what it does.

It's the other problems that make it hard when the Rumble's won so often by part-timers (Batista) or established stars returning from injury (Cena, Edge) that really hurt the Rumble.

[Evil Homer]

May 24, 2015 23:13:20 GMT -5 molson5 said:

I'm not a fan of any "always" rule in professional wrestling booking. Top guys never winning one of the biggest matches of the year is like big guys never winning battle royals.

Im not saying someone like Neville or Zayn enter and win the rumble 6 months on the roster , more like Wyatt , Ambrose , Barett ( I could still see it happening ) ,

[DSR]

They can change it up every once in a while. It's kind of annoying that they have essentially a 30 man battle royal, and it's usually one of the four most obvious candidates for a Mania main event that wins it.

[Evil Homer]

May 24, 2015 23:18:52 GMT -5 Reflecto said:

Established stars winning the Rumble is fine enough- if you have too many rising stars win the Rumble, either the Wrestlemania main event means nothing because it's always Champ vs. midcarder, or the "Winner of the Rumble goes to Wrestlemania" thing has to be taken out, and then the Rumble ceases to mean what it does.

It's the other problems that make it hard when the Rumble's won so often by part-timers (Batista) or established stars returning from injury (Cena, Edge) that really hurt the Rumble.

I agree about the returning stars should never win the rumble - Sure I love a star returning as a surprise entrant , but it shouldnt lead to them winning the rumble , final 4 spot at best

[Urfarkendarf]

It shouldn't be as cut and dry as you're suggesting.

If its a rising star that wins it, it's even easier to predict who will win it year to year because there's really only a handful of guys that can be considered "rising stars" that have a decent chance to win it in the first place. It's perfectly logical for an established guy to win it if fits the current booking. What if a "rising star" is already a heel champ and has the belt already by the Rumble and the payoff is that guy losing at Mania?

It's not as simple as just using it as a launching pad for anyone. It's definitely a tool that can and should be used on "rising stars", but to set it as a rule is limiting and not logical. The whole point of the Rumble is that anyone in the 30 can win, we all know that guys like Santino were never going to win, but if it goes to the "rising star" every year as a rule it dilutes the event over time.

[Red Impact]

There are no always.

It's fine as long as it's not the same person winning it all the time. More variety in who wins woul eb nice, but there' no way you can do a rumble everyyear and never have a current main eventer win it.

[Urfarkendarf]

May 24, 2015 23:36:21 GMT -5 devondragon said:

Get rid of the title shot stipulation. I don't know how you do that in kayfabe, though.

Absolutely not. That's literally the reason that the Rumble is a "Big 4" and has been for the last 15-20+ years. Its just another battle royale otherwise. There has to be a stipulation attached to it to maintain its luster. Do we want the Rumble to be King of the Ring?

[froggyfrog]

why not? if it leads to a good mania main event idc who wins it, its a good vehicle to break guys into the main event scene, but thats not its only use

[EoE: Well There's Your Problem]

We kind of need to get away from WrestleMania being the ONLY time of year where people get established and important things actually happen. Fans are getting genre-savvy and know now to save their Network money (when WWE actually WANT it, that is) for WrestleMania because of it, and have no interest in the other shows.

When someone is ready to main event, pull the trigger ASAP. If it means Roman Reigns or Dean Ambrose win their first world title at Battleground, so be it. You missed out. Then maybe someone else can be freed up for the Rumble and you might be able to establish another guy as well.

[Nic Nemeth]

I'm tired of guys winning it more than once, after the first time, how are they not established enough to get a title shot on merit alone?

[Deleted]

I like the way they do it. Sometimes a top guy wins, sometimes a midcarder, and sometimes a surprise return. It makes it unpredictable if you don't follow the backstage rumors of who will win. We don't need a new "THE guy" created every year.

The only problem is that they made horrible choices the last couple of years. The Mania matches themselves both turned out good, but the Rumble itself shouldn't leave you feeling disappointed unless the dastardly heel won and its heel heat.

[The Kevstaaa]

Depends on the situation.

Sometimes a rising star is the best choice, like Batista in 2005 but sometimes it isn't like Alberto Del Rio in 2011.
Sometimes an established star is the best choice like Undertaker in 2007 but sometimes it isn't like John Cena in 2013.

[1 Free Moon-Down with Burger]

How many rising stars actually won the rumble? I feel like established dudes win almost all of the time going back to the first one.

[Super Nintenjoe KBD]

May 25, 2015 11:16:31 GMT -5 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger said:

How many rising stars actually won the rumble? I feel like established dudes win almost all of the time going back to the first one.

Hmm, you could make cases for Hacksaw, Yoko, HBK, Stone Cold, Lesnar, Benoit and Del Rio. Sheamus aswell although he had already been champion by that stage hadn't he but wasnt an established big star I would say. Until reading through the list there I had no memory whatsoever that he was a former winner.