randomranter
Dennis Stamp
When you grow up....... YOU'RE GONNA BE WROOOOOONG!!!!
Posts: 4,804
|
Post by randomranter on Oct 28, 2007 11:01:20 GMT -5
NO-ONE, with the possible exception of Giant Gonzalez, was a worse wrestler than The Great Khali is. Uncle Elmer. He makes Gonzalez and Khali seem like Angle in comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by pathogen on Oct 28, 2007 11:06:23 GMT -5
Rey, and the fact that he went on to win the title was laughable. Why not just put the belt on Hornswaggle, he's bigger.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785 
|
Post by The OP on Oct 28, 2007 11:08:31 GMT -5
NO-ONE, with the possible exception of Giant Gonzalez, was a worse wrestler than The Great Khali is. I disagree. Khali is actually a pretty good pro wrestler by my personal standards. I look for believability, a distinctive look and name, crowd psychology, and that's pretty much it. It's a matter of opinion of course as everyone has their own standards, but based on what I look for, he's not one of my all time favorites or anything, but he's not bad at all. I'm liking the claw finisher. It looks way scarier than Fritz Von Erich or Baron Von Raschke doing it. As for the original topic, I don't think anyone that's won the Rumble is a bad wrestler per se, but I agree that Rey's win was the least believable. It would've been better to book him as a late entry. They still could've gotten the feel-good underdog win, it was just annoying overkill to have him enter so early. |
|
|
|
Post by 'Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada on Oct 28, 2007 11:17:42 GMT -5
Rey Mysterio.
First thing that popped in my mind when I saw the title.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2007 11:19:07 GMT -5
I'm just going to be different and say the Rock's 2000 Rumble win was the worst, only for the fact is there were just 2 logical choices to win it: either Rock or the Big Show. The rest were just fleshing out the match.
I don't even know the real criteria for judging worst wrestler, I thought this was a crappy Rumble where there was no real intrigue that anybody else could win besides those two mentioned.
You could also make a case that Hulk Hogan should have never won a Rumble, yet he won two. I don't know what he gained by winning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaffa is behind you. on Oct 28, 2007 12:31:22 GMT -5
Does Vince count?
|
|
|
|
Post by pathogen on Oct 28, 2007 12:37:42 GMT -5
Hogan winning didn't accomplish a damned thing, but I guess his collassal ego needed it.
|
|
bob
Backup Wench
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 80,920
|
Post by bob on Oct 28, 2007 12:45:40 GMT -5
Batista
|
|
|
|
Post by scifi1980 on Oct 28, 2007 13:19:34 GMT -5
Mysterio and Batista tie on my list of worst winners. Mysterio was a blown storyline. They should of started his dedication business after he won the Rumble. If Mysterio won when no one was expecting it, it would of been huge. But they had been driving it home with that do it for Eddie BS for weeks before the actual ppv and the result was everyone knew going into the ppv who would win. Most obvious Rumble winner since HHH.
Batista......I never ever will understand what this guy had to be world champion. He has the image of the big stupid strong guy who doesn't talk. There have been plenty of those guys over the years so what makes him so special. But everyone seemed to be behind him back in 2005. The dum smarks and marks wanted him to get the title off HHH so bad they didn't think about who they were actually suggesting should be the new champ. Now 2 years later nobody likes him, everyone says what a crappy worker he is and how rotten he is behind the scenes.
That irritates the hell out of me. People hate one guy so much and start cheering a midcarder like crazy to win the belt, and after he does people turn against him after they realize he has been promoted past what he's capable of. A bunch of posers I say. I hated Batista as a World champ going back to 2003.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Oct 28, 2007 13:53:38 GMT -5
Sometimes I shake my head in disbelief and chuckle when I read these forums. Say what you will about Lex Lugar but the fact is that he was the perfect type of wrestler for the Royal Rumble. The Royal Rumble is not designed to be a five star match or a chain wrestling contest. In a purist of sense, the Rumble is about raw power and toughness. Yes, Lugar was not the most technical wrestler but his size and build and agility and muscle was perfect for a match such as the Rumble.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobafett on Oct 28, 2007 14:42:49 GMT -5
i disagree with Rey, if you forget the Eddie thing and what happened after the rumble, Rey is nimble as hell so he could escape countless ways of getting him/throwing him out, plus, his size is an advantage in a way, you would have to pick him up to throw him out, you couldn't ..say pull down the top rope or clothesline him out, even then, if he grabbed the top rope, there was no way his feet would be remotely close to the ground
plus Rey before then had never been anything but crazy over, as for "oh he hardly eliminated anyone" the guy who wins doesn't need to be the guy who eliminated the most, and anyway the 2006 rumble was bad for too many careless near eliminations (the ones where the guy throws the other guiy out and turns away as the guy he nearly thrown out slips under the ropes )
|
|
|
|
Post by VRM: LET'S GO BLUESHIRTS!! on Oct 28, 2007 14:44:14 GMT -5
Vince
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,480
|
Post by metylerca on Oct 28, 2007 14:58:08 GMT -5
Hulk Hogan... now let me have a chance to explain myself...
he won it as the champion.. yet even at that time, the Royal Rumble was nowhere near Wrestlemania as far as interest; close, but not too close.
Having him go over the roster was just stale and didn't make any new stars. Picture Mr. Perfect winning instead of Hogan. My opinion is there.
|
|
Ken Ivory
Hank Scorpio
This sorta thing IS my bag, baby.
Posts: 5,282
|
Post by Ken Ivory on Oct 28, 2007 15:39:11 GMT -5
Lex Luger couldn't afford to win the Royal Rumble. What kind of disgusting despli...despicable *sigh* lack of respect. |
|
|
|
Post by scifi1980 on Oct 28, 2007 18:03:41 GMT -5
i disagree with Rey, if you forget the Eddie thing and what happened after the rumble, Rey is nimble as hell so he could escape countless ways of getting him/throwing him out, plus, his size is an advantage in a way, you would have to pick him up to throw him out, you couldn't ..say pull down the top rope or clothesline him out, even then, if he grabbed the top rope, there was no way his feet would be remotely close to the ground plus Rey before then had never been anything but crazy over, as for "oh he hardly eliminated anyone" the guy who wins doesn't need to be the guy who eliminated the most, and anyway the 2006 rumble was bad for too many careless near eliminations (the ones where the guy throws the other guiy out and turns away as the guy he nearly thrown out slips under the ropes ) When Rey came in back in 2002 the crowd went nuts. As soon as they tied him in with Guerrero, his popularity went down the toilet. Maybe not down the toilet, but it got stuck in the hole on the way down. |
|
|
|
Post by steamboat1 on Oct 28, 2007 18:07:09 GMT -5
I would have to go with either Big John Studd or Hogan's victory in '90. Was it really necessary for the Champion to win the rumble?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pgarodactyl on Oct 28, 2007 18:07:13 GMT -5
McMahon won the Rumble before, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Oct 28, 2007 18:31:07 GMT -5
Hogan, McMahon, Billy Gunn...All piss poor choices.
|
|
Samoa Kenny
Unicron
The WrestleCrap Forums #1 heel
Posts: 2,629
|
Post by Samoa Kenny on Oct 28, 2007 18:34:49 GMT -5
Flair, Duh
|
|
|
|
Post by jmac950 on Oct 28, 2007 19:14:21 GMT -5
Gotta be Flair
|
|
