Post by Jeremy on Jan 25, 2011 19:09:02 GMT -5
I believe that Triple H should have won the Royal Rumble in 2009 instead of Randy Orton. It would still have lead to them facing at WrestleMania, just Orton would have been the champion going in instead of Triple H.
Triple H wins the Rumble
Orton gets put into the Elimination Chamber for the World Heavyweight Championship (it was the title on RAW at this point)
Loses a beat the clock sprint on a technicality so he will not enter the chamber last.
Demands Stephanie makes him the final entrant despite this.
She refuses, he insults her (saying she was only the RAW GM because of who her father was). She slaps him.
He confronts her out in the ring later in the night, Vince interrupts. Gets punted.
Orton wins the title at the Chamber.
Shane comes out the night after the Elimination Chamber and tries to attack Orton. Orton lays him out then RKO's Stephanie. Triple H comes to her rescue.
Storyline continues the same as it did from that point on.
It would at least have prevented Orton from getting beaten on by Shane for a month.
Looking back on previous Royal Rumble winners, are there any examples where you believe someone else would have been a better choice of a winner than who actually won?
Perhaps Undertaker in 2003, John Cena in 2005, Orton in 2006, etc.
Triple H wins the Rumble
Orton gets put into the Elimination Chamber for the World Heavyweight Championship (it was the title on RAW at this point)
Loses a beat the clock sprint on a technicality so he will not enter the chamber last.
Demands Stephanie makes him the final entrant despite this.
She refuses, he insults her (saying she was only the RAW GM because of who her father was). She slaps him.
He confronts her out in the ring later in the night, Vince interrupts. Gets punted.
Orton wins the title at the Chamber.
Shane comes out the night after the Elimination Chamber and tries to attack Orton. Orton lays him out then RKO's Stephanie. Triple H comes to her rescue.
Storyline continues the same as it did from that point on.
It would at least have prevented Orton from getting beaten on by Shane for a month.
Looking back on previous Royal Rumble winners, are there any examples where you believe someone else would have been a better choice of a winner than who actually won?
Perhaps Undertaker in 2003, John Cena in 2005, Orton in 2006, etc.
