|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Apr 3, 2023 22:47:39 GMT -5
Seems to be a worrying trend starting in 2009.
Can't say I'm a fan. Retroactively makes the Royal Rumble match pointless.
Agree? Disagree?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Rick Jericho on Apr 3, 2023 22:52:15 GMT -5
Seems to be a worrying trend starting in 2009. Can't say I'm a fan. Retroactively makes the Royal Rumble match pointless. Agree? Disagree? I actually just looked this up minutes ago. Since the Royal Rumble in 2007. Only 5 men's winners since, have won the title at Wrestlemania. Sheamus Cena Orton Rollins McIntyre That's it! |
|
|
|
Post by LiamMcDuggle on Apr 3, 2023 23:03:57 GMT -5
Seems to be a worrying trend starting in 2009. Can't say I'm a fan. Retroactively makes the Royal Rumble match pointless. Agree? Disagree? I actually just looked this up minutes ago. Since the Royal Rumble in 2007. Only 5 men's winners since, have won the title at Wrestlemania. Sheamus Cena Orton Rollins McIntyre That's it! Prior to that, every Rumble winner with the exception of Rock in 2000 and Austin in 1997 won at Mania, and one of them was a really two odd circumstances as Austin did not even fight for a title at Mania 13. |
|
tirtefaa
Unicron
If you wanna know the truth, you gotta dig up Johnny Booth.
Posts: 2,865
|
Post by tirtefaa on Apr 3, 2023 23:09:55 GMT -5
^ Actually, that's not true. Hogan in '90, Flair, Yokozuna, Luger, Shawn in '95 all lost.
I'm actually fine with this. For the longest time it felt like the Rumble was essentially a guaranteed win. While that's fun, it really loses it's luster over time.
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by cjh on Apr 3, 2023 23:25:12 GMT -5
^ Actually, that's not true. Flair, Yokozuna, Luger, Shawn in 95 all lost. Flair won the title, not a title shot, by winning the Rumble. Randy Savage was his challenger at WM 8. Yokozuna won the title from Bret Hart at WM 9 after winning the Rumble. When Bret beat Yokozuna at WM 10, their roles had swapped from the previous year. Bret was the Rumble winner challenging the champion. |
|
tirtefaa
Unicron
If you wanna know the truth, you gotta dig up Johnny Booth.
Posts: 2,865
|
Post by tirtefaa on Apr 3, 2023 23:57:38 GMT -5
Flair won the title, not a title shot, by winning the Rumble. Randy Savage was his challenger at WM 8. Yokozuna won the title from Bret Hart at WM 9 after winning the Rumble. When Bret beat Yokozuna at WM 10, their roles had swapped from the previous year. Bret was the Rumble winner challenging the champion. That's not what was being said in his post. He simply stated that the person who won the Rumble went on to win at Mania. |
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,952
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Apr 4, 2023 0:06:47 GMT -5
The Rumble winner going on to WrestleMania is an idea whose time has long, long, long, looooooooooong since passed, especially since they do it twice a damn year now.
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by cjh on Apr 4, 2023 0:19:22 GMT -5
Flair won the title, not a title shot, by winning the Rumble. Randy Savage was his challenger at WM 8. Yokozuna won the title from Bret Hart at WM 9 after winning the Rumble. When Bret beat Yokozuna at WM 10, their roles had swapped from the previous year. Bret was the Rumble winner challenging the champion. That's not what was being said in his post. He simply stated that the person who won the Rumble went on to win at Mania. The "Rumble winner gets a title shot at WM" stipulation didn't even exist yet the years Hogan and Flair won, so why even count them? Plus, Yokozuna definitely doesn't apply. He won the Rumble to get the title shot, then he beat the champion at WM. |
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Apr 4, 2023 0:32:56 GMT -5
The Rumble winner going on to WrestleMania is an idea whose time has long, long, long, looooooooooong since passed, especially since they do it twice a damn year now. The issue is then… what’s the point of doing them if there’s no prize up for grabs? Before 1992 the match in and of itself was still enough of a novelty just for seeing all the big stars of the day in the one match, but all these years of star v star TV later? |
|
tirtefaa
Unicron
If you wanna know the truth, you gotta dig up Johnny Booth.
Posts: 2,865
|
Post by tirtefaa on Apr 4, 2023 0:37:38 GMT -5
The "Rumble winner gets a title shot at WM" stipulation didn't even exist yet the years Hogan and Flair won, so why even count them? Plus, Yokozuna definitely doesn't apply. He won the Rumble to get the title shot, then he beat the champion at WM. Because I was responding to this; Prior to that, every Rumble winner with the exception of Rock in 2000 and Austin in 1997 won at Mania, and one of them was a really two odd circumstances as Austin did not even fight for a title at Mania 13. And it is an absolute fact that the guys that I mentioned are guys who won the Rumble, then proceeded to lose at WrestleMania. Doesn't matter if they fought for the title, or if they won a match before losing. It's simply fact. |
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by cjh on Apr 4, 2023 0:52:37 GMT -5
The "Rumble winner gets a title shot at WM" stipulation didn't even exist yet the years Hogan and Flair won, so why even count them? Plus, Yokozuna definitely doesn't apply. He won the Rumble to get the title shot, then he beat the champion at WM. Because I was responding to this; Prior to that, every Rumble winner with the exception of Rock in 2000 and Austin in 1997 won at Mania, and one of them was a really two odd circumstances as Austin did not even fight for a title at Mania 13. And it is an absolute fact that the guys that I mentioned are guys who won the Rumble, then proceeded to lose at WrestleMania. Doesn't matter if they fought for the title, or if they won a match before losing. It's simply fact. I was responding to your list of guys who "all lost." Luger, Michaels, Yokozuna. Two of them won the Rumble, then lost at WM. The other won at both. When I read the initial posts in this thread, I assumed that the OP was explicitly referring to Rumble winners' success/failure rate in the WM title match they earned by winning the Rumble. That would mean not counting 1988-1992 (stip didn't exist yet), 1997 (Rumble winner ended up not challenging the champ at WM), and 2016 (Rumble match was for the title itself rather than a title shot). |
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,952
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Apr 4, 2023 2:14:00 GMT -5
The Rumble winner going on to WrestleMania is an idea whose time has long, long, long, looooooooooong since passed, especially since they do it twice a damn year now. The issue is then… what’s the point of doing them if there’s no prize up for grabs? Before 1992 the match in and of itself was still enough of a novelty just for seeing all the big stars of the day in the one match, but all these years of star v star TV later? I dunno, what's the point of any of it? It's just a TV show. Combine it into Money in the Bank or King of the Ring, which kinda makes sense in a literal way. And that's really still the draw anyway, people really are drawn to seeing who comes out in what order. The best you get out of people remembering the Rumble is Heenan's 92 commentary, a few "save" spots from Kofi and Morrison, how shitty some were booked and....that's about all. Doing the automatic title shot traps them and it's happening more and more, they didn't want Sami to win, but the winds were blowing his way this year, he got a main event out of it and the tag titles, but people really, really wanted to see him unseat Roman, would he have? Dunno, but they were trapped with Cody. They got trapped with Batista when he won, people wanted Bryan, it took the hijacking of shows and social media by the fans to even get them to consider Bryan and now they act like it was the plan all along. I love the Rumble as same as anyone else, but doing two a show now, with the same stipulation, with the same expected outcome at Mania is getting tired. At least for me. |
|
4real
Wade Wilson
Posts: 27,844
|
Post by 4real on Apr 4, 2023 9:42:59 GMT -5
Full list as I can see
94 Luger (But Bret did win so both of them couldn’t have left as Champion)
95 HBK (Didn’t main event either)
97 Austin (didn’t technically win the Rumble so didn’t get the title shot)
99 Vince (gave up title shot which went to the runner up, Austin)
2000 Rock (Didn’t technically win either as they botched the finish, lost the title shot to Big Show but got added to a fatal four way)
08 Cena (cashed in title shot at No Way Out and lost by DQ, got added to title match at Mania but got pinned, not main event)
09 Orton (Pinned by HHH in the main event)
2010 Edge (Lost to World Champ Jericho, not main event)
11 Del Rio (Lost to Edge in the opener)
14 Batista (Tapped out to Bryan in the main event)
15 Roman (Pinned by MITB winner Seth in the main event)
16 HHH (Won the title in the Rumble and lost to Roman in the main event)
18 Nakamura (Lost to Styles, not main event)
18 Asuka (Lost to Charlotte losing her undefeated streak)
21 Edge (Lost to Roman in a triple threat main of night 2)
22 Brock (Lost to Roman main night 2)
22 Ronda (Lost to Charlotte)
23 Cody (Lost to Roman (lol) main night 2)
You can chuck in Yoko if you like since he didn’t leave Mania 9 as Champ but he did win the title. I wouldn’t count it though.
Biggest notable is that 7 year gap from 2001 to 07 where the Rumble winner won every year (Rey 06 & Taker 07 didn’t main event though)
|
|
salz4life
Grimlock
Prichard is a guy who gets that his job is to service his boss.
Posts: 14,007
|
Post by salz4life on Apr 4, 2023 10:26:34 GMT -5
The Rumble winner going on to WrestleMania is an idea whose time has long, long, long, looooooooooong since passed, especially since they do it twice a damn year now. I disagree with respect to the Rumble. The Rumble is essentially WWEs G1. The G1 winner gets to face the IWGP champ at Wrestle Kingdom. The Rumble winner getting the title shot at Mania is tradition. MITB, however, I think should go away. That is what dilutes the Rumble. Just my opinion, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Instant Classic on Apr 4, 2023 10:56:15 GMT -5
I wasn’t watching back then why didn’t Austin get his shot in 97?
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,294
|
Post by Push R Truth on Apr 4, 2023 11:21:32 GMT -5
I wasn’t watching back then why didn’t Austin get his shot in 97? My sour patch kid coated brain is thinking he got hurt at a show after the Rumble. Like his knee or something. I think he ended up wrestling Hart in that iconic match "bloody face Stone Cold yelling" at that Mania. I honestly think I got kayfabe and reality mixed up in my brain for this time period. And I'm too lazy to just google it. That takes the fun out of blindly trying to remember. Was that the Rumble he got tossed, ref didn't see it and he re-entered and threw out Hart to win it? |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Apr 4, 2023 11:49:09 GMT -5
The Rumble winner going on to WrestleMania is an idea whose time has long, long, long, looooooooooong since passed, especially since they do it twice a damn year now. I disagree with respect to the Rumble. The Rumble is essentially WWEs G1. The G1 winner gets to face the IWGP champ at Wrestle Kingdom. The Rumble winner getting the title shot at Mania is tradition. MITB, however, I think should go away. That is what dilutes the Rumble. Just my opinion, though. I've said before that I think the huge difference there is that at least in kayfabe, the G1 (and other similar tournaments like Champion's Carnival and whatnot) are really legit accomplishments - you managed to beat a field of anywhere from like 14-20 people, you wrestle your ass off, etc. The Rumble, meantime, is built around chaos and random chance; obviously we know it's not really, but again in kayfabe so much of who wins comes down to "what number did you draw, and did you manage to not fall out of the ring by mistake?", and basing the main event of your biggest show of the year around that is kind of insane. Oh, and they often invite people to be in it who are basically retired, or celebrities, or otherwise would never be trusted to main event a show the scale of Wrestlemania. I think the Rumble would be better if the winner got to make some kind of request or wish, or if there were limits on what a winner could challenge for (e.g. you have to be considered a top level guy to request the title match, something like that), and then just really play up the chaos and randomness. Like, imagine if Santino had actually won that one year? Well, cool, let him. Or some random new guy wins, or an older star on the way out, or anything. Otherwise it's "Here's 30 people, but only like 5 of them have any real chance." Hell, the allure of it went way down once they had two world titles, anyway; think about the times somebody won it and didn't get to main event WM, since they usually treat one of the belts as secondary to the other. |
|
salz4life
Grimlock
Prichard is a guy who gets that his job is to service his boss.
Posts: 14,007
|
Post by salz4life on Apr 4, 2023 11:55:13 GMT -5
I disagree with respect to the Rumble. The Rumble is essentially WWEs G1. The G1 winner gets to face the IWGP champ at Wrestle Kingdom. The Rumble winner getting the title shot at Mania is tradition. MITB, however, I think should go away. That is what dilutes the Rumble. Just my opinion, though. I've said before that I think the huge difference there is that at least in kayfabe, the G1 (and other similar tournaments like Champion's Carnival and whatnot) are really legit accomplishments - you managed to beat a field of anywhere from like 14-20 people, you wrestle your ass off, etc. The Rumble, meantime, is built around chaos and random chance; obviously we know it's not really, but again in kayfabe so much of who wins comes down to "what number did you draw, and did you manage to not fall out of the ring by mistake?", and basing the main event of your biggest show of the year around that is kind of insane. Oh, and they often invite people to be in it who are basically retired, or celebrities, or otherwise would never be trusted to main event a show the scale of Wrestlemania. I think the Rumble would be better if the winner got to make some kind of request or wish, or if there were limits on what a winner could challenge for (e.g. you have to be considered a top level guy to request the title match, something like that), and then just really play up the chaos and randomness. Like, imagine if Santino had actually won that one year? Well, cool, let him. Or some random new guy wins, or an older star on the way out, or anything. Otherwise it's "Here's 30 people, but only like 5 of them have any real chance." Hell, the allure of it went way down once they had two world titles, anyway; think about the times somebody won it and didn't get to main event WM, since they usually treat one of the belts as secondary to the other. I've ALWAYS hated the "2 World Titles" thing. I agree with you on that being when the Royal Rumble stipulation starting to lose its luster. |
|
|
|
Post by sunnytaker on Apr 4, 2023 12:13:50 GMT -5
the other issue with the WM title shot stip is that it immediately cuts down the potential winners to a small handful. while without it then anyone can win because they're not required to be at main event level in order to succeed. though that would overlap with the andre battle royale nowadays as far as results except for the delayed entrances vs everyone in the match at once.
|
|
|
|
Post by celtics543 on Apr 4, 2023 12:24:06 GMT -5
I kind of want every rumble to include the champion, they enter at 30 but it's for the title. Make it high stakes and you still have time before Mania to build up the challenger. Make the Rumble for the title and then use Elimination Chamber to name the challenger for Mania. Makes both ppv's even more important, especially Elimination Chamber.
|
|
