Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,891
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Dec 31, 2006 3:18:49 GMT -5
I was just watching WrestleMania 4 and got to thinking, every WrestleMania should have a Battle Royale. I know they did at 2, 4 and 14 had that odd tag team one, plus DVD bonus one a couple years back. I think it's s a good way to get more guys on the card, without actually having to build the match up. They could haul out another huge-ass trophy for the winner and it can be anybody who wins, it doesn't even have to matter. I think it would be a fun way to kick off each WrestleMania........
|
|
nostradumbass
Tommy Wiseau
The only man to be booked in TNA and not look like a jackass
Posts: 89
|
Post by nostradumbass on Dec 31, 2006 3:21:42 GMT -5
The staple of Wrestlemania should be huge main events.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Dec 31, 2006 3:23:04 GMT -5
I think it should be used occasionally, because I love a good battle royale. I would love to see one this year.
|
|
|
Post by KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!! on Dec 31, 2006 3:23:22 GMT -5
I was just watching WrestleMania 4 and got to thinking, every WrestleMania should have a Battle Royale. I know they did at 2, 4 and 14 had that odd tag team one, plus DVD bonus one a couple years back. I think it's s a good way to get more guys on the card, without actually having to build the match up. They could haul out another huge-ass trophy for the winner and it can be anybody who wins, it doesn't even have to matter. I think it would be a fun way to kick off each WrestleMania........ You forgot the awesome, but all too short one at Wrestlemani 17 featuring all the gimmicks of years gone by.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,891
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Dec 31, 2006 3:23:35 GMT -5
A battle royale doesn't have to be THE staple.....just a staple. Just something that comes along with the WrestleMania package.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,891
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Dec 31, 2006 3:24:13 GMT -5
I was just watching WrestleMania 4 and got to thinking, every WrestleMania should have a Battle Royale. I know they did at 2, 4 and 14 had that odd tag team one, plus DVD bonus one a couple years back. I think it's s a good way to get more guys on the card, without actually having to build the match up. They could haul out another huge-ass trophy for the winner and it can be anybody who wins, it doesn't even have to matter. I think it would be a fun way to kick off each WrestleMania........ You forgot the awesome, but all too short one at Wrestlemani 17 featuring all the gimmicks of years gone by. Oh, that was awesome.....Not sure why I forgot that one.
|
|
WWHHHD
Unicron
Break it down for a 5 second pose!
Posts: 3,467
|
Post by WWHHHD on Dec 31, 2006 3:32:58 GMT -5
They do have a battle royal before the ppv as a dark match... Buy the DVD's of the past couple manias and you shall see them.
|
|
|
Post by Cousin Judge on Dec 31, 2006 3:43:00 GMT -5
From a sheer visual perspective a battle royale is impressive. However does WWE have the roster to have one on a Wrestlemania? On Raw they resorted to getting the Brooklyn Brawler back and that was when they weren't exactly packing the rest of the show with top class talent, I don't know if they could fill four hours of TV time AND put on a battle royale with more than five people that anyone gives a crap about.
|
|
Boku AKA Da Green Guy
El Dandy
WC's Resident Pirate Otaku and Official Scapegoat
Always and Forever, Hurricane.
Posts: 8,371
|
Post by Boku AKA Da Green Guy on Dec 31, 2006 4:38:43 GMT -5
I'm always hoping for a Gimmick Battle Royal part II.
|
|
|
Post by THE Dinobot on Dec 31, 2006 6:30:51 GMT -5
From a sheer visual perspective a battle royale is impressive. However does WWE have the roster to have one on a Wrestlemania? On Raw they resorted to getting the Brooklyn Brawler back and that was when they weren't exactly packing the rest of the show with top class talent, I don't know if they could fill four hours of TV time AND put on a battle royale with more than five people that anyone gives a crap about. Being that it's a major stage like WrestleMania, they simply take all the semi-popular guys on each of the three brands who aren't already booked, get a trophy, and boom, instant good time battle royal. With this, we wouldn't have to worry about Brawler, Lawler, Slaughter and others in the ring just wasting time.
|
|
|
Post by KingPopper on Dec 31, 2006 7:02:14 GMT -5
the pre-show dark match ones are a good idea, but there needs to be good reason to put it on the mainshow. a legends battleroyal would be cool.
|
|
|
Post by seanwalsh on Dec 31, 2006 8:56:07 GMT -5
The 2005 dark match battle royal was great because both brands had a lot of people on the roster. So basically everyone who wasn't on the main WM card was in that battle royal. 22 people or so (1 or 2 "injuries", like Rene Dupree, weren't there)
The 2006 match SUCKED because Raw only had a couple people (since so many were on the WM card) so Smackdown had to match that number, even though they had twice as many undercarders. That and the match just didn't go well either.
Not sure how this year's will go, as it would have to include ECW too. Maybe it'll be another 30-person match......but again, Raw's undercard will probably be miniscule while Smackdown won't and ECW will have even more, I'd bet.
|
|
repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,049
|
Post by repomark on Dec 31, 2006 11:40:27 GMT -5
A gimmick battle royale maybe - but I dont think there should be a proper battle royale at every mania as it could serve to detract a little from the Royal Rumble.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,891
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Dec 31, 2006 18:27:50 GMT -5
It wouldn't really distract from the Royal Rumble, since the Rumble will have occured 2 or 3 months prior to WrestleMania.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Dec 31, 2006 18:30:26 GMT -5
I'm always hoping for a Gimmick Battle Royal part II. Amen to that.
|
|
repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,049
|
Post by repomark on Dec 31, 2006 21:43:11 GMT -5
It wouldn't really distract from the Royal Rumble, since the Rumble will have occured 2 or 3 months prior to WrestleMania. Firstly detract not destract. (sorry pedantic I know) Secondly, I do not feel that two - three months is long enough a period to not detract from the Royal Rumble spectacle. it is hardly a big spectacle if you know something similar is coming in 2-3 months. A high profile battle royale at every mania in my view would be a huge mistake. A gimmicky low profile battle royale as comic relief would be fine every year.
|
|
Scott
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 3,577
|
Post by Scott on Jan 1, 2007 4:08:31 GMT -5
It gives guys who would never be on the show a chance to play a part somehow. It would never overshadow the Rumble since a huge part of the Rumble appeal is wondering who is coming out next. You don't get that when everyone starts in the ring at the beginning.
|
|
repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,049
|
Post by repomark on Jan 1, 2007 9:55:12 GMT -5
Yes I agree on the who is coming next factor being a great appeal in the rumble - but it is still basically a Battle Royale once all the entrants have...em...entered. The Royal Rumble match is still my favourite of the WWE's inventions - however it is just a manipulation of the battle royale concept and I still think it would be hurt by an annual high profile battle royale two months after it.
I just think the minute you start having an annual battle royale you are going to have to attach stipulations like oh I dont know - a world title shot - for the winner. If it was low profile that is okay - but the minute it starts getting elevated up the mania card I think that would be trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Cactus Jack on Jan 1, 2007 10:59:48 GMT -5
I liked the one at WM 14.
That is all.
|
|
|
Post by seanwalsh on Jan 1, 2007 11:12:53 GMT -5
I just think the minute you start having an annual battle royale you are going to have to attach stipulations like oh I dont know - a world title shot - for the winner. If it was low profile that is okay - but the minute it starts getting elevated up the mania card I think that would be trouble. I dislike the fact that all battle royals have to have some stip attached to it. Especially the #1 contender's matches. It's almost like it seems more fun if it's just a regular BR with no added bonus except "you win." Although I'd love to see one with "$25,000 cash prize for the winner!" stip. That's old school and thus cooler than the present day.
|
|