Has the Royal Rumble Lost it's Importance?

[Rolent Tex]

I was thinking about this over in another thread. Looking back at the Royal Rumbles and Wrestlemanias during the late 90's and early 00's, the Rumble was instrumental in setting up the climax to many of their major feuds...or they used to to elevate someone to main even status.

With the introduction of the Money in the Bank match and with how Rumble winners have been treated since '06 on, has the match lost some of it's importance? The last Rumble to set up a feud into THE main event was '05 with Big Dave Batista winning and finishing off the Evolution stable by winning the title from his former running buddy Triple H.

Now...in '06, Rey Mysterio won the WHC in a three way dance in a match with Kurt Angle and Randy Orton. Orton was thrown into the match and it was rumored that Vince changed his mind to have Mysterio win the title and only went through with it due to backstage unhappiness over the decision. The match was so important that it was booked on the card UNDER the Playboy Pillow Fight.

In '07, the Undertaker won the Rumble and put the Streak on the line against Batista for the WHC. Not even Undertaker's Streak could get the match booked above the ECW Originals vs the New Breed...or hell, even Melina vs Ashley for the Women's Title.

In '08, John Cena returned to win...only to use his title shot at No Way Out. The match didn't even make it to Mania. John Cena is a sucker.

In '09, Randy Orton won and DID face Triple H in the main event...but the Rumble winner lost as...yeah, Triple H won.

In '10, Edge returned to win the Rumble...just to lose his match with Chris Jericho. The match was also booked before the 10 Divas tag match.

In '11, Alberto del Rio won just to curtain jerk Mania and lose his match with Edge.

So since the Batista win, only one Rumble winner was in the true Mania main event and not a single Rumble winner has successfully won their title match since '07. I don't see why anyone would care about the Rumble on the WWE roster when they could just work on winning the MitB, cash it in after the Mania ME (or cash in to be in the ME) and have better odds at walking out champion.

That saddens me since I used to love what the Rumble brought to big feuds...even as predictable as it was.

[CMWaters]

To be fair about Alberto/Edge, I'm thinking the reason that they put it on so early was because of Edge's condition and wanting to get that match done as fast as possible so Edge could rest and then get medically checked out.

[Rolent Tex]

Oct 13, 2011 1:47:39 GMT -5 CMWaters said:

To be fair about Alberto/Edge, I'm thinking the reason that they put it on so early was because of Edge's condition and wanting to get that match done as fast as possible so Edge could rest and then get medically checked out.

I'm willing to be fair about that as well. Unfortunately it just seemed to be in line with recent years. I'm just curious where it's placing on the card would have been otherwise.

[#RUDO Coco Del Rio]

For 2006, it was placed that way so fans could have a breather in between the World title and the WWE title matches. Same with 2010. That's actually the purpose of Diva matches at Wrestlemania, unfortunately for diva fans.

[Rolent Tex]

Oct 13, 2011 2:03:35 GMT -5 #RUDO Coco Del Rio said:

For 2006, it was placed that way so fans could have a breather in between the World title and the WWE title matches. Same with 2010. That's actually the purpose of Diva matches at Wrestlemania, unfortunately for diva fans.

Oh, I know they usually book a match between the main events to give the fans a breather, but kayfabe-wise, winning the Rumble doesn't hold the luster it used to. If I were a superstar, I'd be more interested in winning the MitB match. Think about those odds...

You have a 1 in 30 (3.33%) or if the new format sticks, a 1 in 40 (2.5%) chance of winning a match at Mania. Even then you aren't guaranteed to be in the main event anymore. In that time, only 33% of winners successfully won the title using the Rumble win. Only 16.66% of Rumble winners in that time actually ended up in THE main event.

If you're in the MitB match, you have a 1 in 8 (12.5%) chance of winning a title shot and unless you're name is Mr. Kennedy and you lose your title shot to someone else, you're looking at 100% success rate of winners becoming champions...and you can force your way into any main event of Mania that involves a title.

It just lowers the value of the Rumble when a guy has five times the chance of winning a MitB match over a Rumble and is pretty much handed a title on a silver platter.

I'd hate to be the sucker that doesn't successfully cash in though...

[#RUDO Coco Del Rio]

You should send those statistics to the WWE. They would look great in a Royal Rumble/Money in the Bank promo video.

[Rolent Tex]

Oct 13, 2011 2:36:25 GMT -5 #RUDO Coco Del Rio said:

You should send those statistics to the WWE. They would look great in a Royal Rumble/Money in the Bank promo video.

*Uses my Money in the Bank briefcase to steal the Rumble winners title shot*

What a minute...

...damn it!

[kidglov3s]

There's also Elimination Chamber, at which world titles or Wrestlemania world title shots are decided in six person matches, with each participant having an 16.67% chance of winning, the winners of which are basically guaranteed spots in Wrestlemania title matches.

[Rolent Tex]

Oct 13, 2011 2:48:44 GMT -5 kidglov3s said:

There's also Elimination Chamber, at which one or both world titles are decided in six person matches, with each participant having an 16.67% chance of winning, the winners of which are basically guaranteed spots in Wrestlemania title matches.

Good call...especially since it seems the Rumble winner's match is always lower on the card than the guy who wins his shot at the other belt through the Elimination Chamber. Better odds, better card spot...the higher risk of injury seems worth it in those two cases.

[EJS]

The Rumble also has the advantage of being easier to get a spot in. If you're not a total jobber you're probably one of the 30 or 40 guys (out of 50-60ish) to be in the Rumble.

If you're not in the match, you have 0% chance of ever winning. So for most people in the company, the Rumble is far better odds.

The best odds of all however, are to just jump the current world champion from behind whenever the hell you want. You'll get an instant title shot or at the very least a non-title matchup which could shoot you to #1 contendership. If you want to angle this into a ticket to Mania, do it either in December or January, since once the Rumble is over you're less likely to get a random title match leading into Mania.

['Foretold' Joker]

I love the Rumble (and battle Royales for that matter) but it has lost impact for three reasons.

1.Two titles to go for means your not guaranteed the Main Event and I classify the main event as the last match at Wrestlemania. The Rumble just means you get to go to WM for a title shot.

2. It's not chaotic enough, it is far too contrived in its current state. Say you have Dolph, Goldust and Kofi in the ring and Rey Mysterio appears as the next entrance. You can guarantee he will come along and hit the 619 and a hurricanrana, probably eliminating one those guys once he gets there. It is just a finisher higlight reel spot fest there is no old school lets have 15 guys in the ring brawling at the same time anymore. Plus from a ring psychology point of view you should be going nowhere near the top turnbuckle. The Rumble is missing its chaos which leads to ...

3. The winner is not suprising, one might argue that since Big John Studd/victor gets a title shot 92 onward the winner has never been a shock, which in itself is a problem. Odds are that either a story is so well telegraphed that its obvious which wrestler will win (Hogan in 91, Austin in 98, HHH in 2002) or a popular choice wil win such as John Cena, Punk, Randy Orton, Triple H, Undertaker, Miz or Big Show. Which is fine but it lacks that element of the Rumble being an anything can happen match. What they need to do one year is have someone win completely from left-field be it an unlikely higher card contender who isn't doing anything, a midcarder or even a suprise entrant (and I don't mean someone who is on the Injury list.) If Wade Barrett, Kofi Kingston or say DDP won the Rumble this year it would really shake things up for the PPV Rumble as an anyone can win it deal.

Thats my opinion on the Rumble these days anyway. Three simple things: Prize has devalued, lack of chaos, result fairly predictable.

[Hit Girl]

All PPV's have lost their importance.

[Paul E. Funk]

It's just the WWE effect, ever since they started hyping the Rumble as the second most important event of the year it's been nowhere near as enjoyable. I've theorised in the past that it's possibly a case of too many chefs. Knowing the importance of the Rumble, everybody wants to get their two cents in and you end up with an overbooked match where no spot is important and nobody stands out and it all comes across as very bland. The WWE way: once they see something's working they go about breaking it.

As for the matches importance, as has been mentioned, it guarantees nothing at Mania and there are better ways for a wrestler to win a title/wrestle at Mania.

Which raises a bigger issue. I fully believe that the way to turn the product around is to not have as many TV shows, PPV's, Stipulation matches and even as many wrestlers (hardly an original idea but still). The problem with that is that WWE's not the same company it was in 1996. It was a big company then, now it's far too big a victim of it's own success if you will. The company needs to put out so many PPV's to keep its revenue steady. As for theme PPV's, I'd like to speculate that that idea was implemented as a reaction to concerned shareholders regarding dwindling buy rates. The company is just too big to go back to it's old ways but it doesn't really know which direction to move forward. Troubling.

EDIT: Apologies to the OP, I was writing that in the bath and appear to have strayed off topic. Still, I think it kinda relates.

[Sparvid]

Oct 13, 2011 5:13:39 GMT -5 'Foretold' Joker said:

What they need to do one year is have someone win completely from left-field be it an unlikely higher card contender who isn't doing anything, a midcarder or even a suprise entrant (and I don't mean someone who is on the Injury list.) If Wade Barrett, Kofi Kingston or say DDP won the Rumble this year it would really shake things up for the PPV Rumble as an anyone can win it deal.

Agreed. It's not like it would be difficult to do. Sure, if you had a regular elimination match and some guy like Cody Rhodes pinned HHH, Undertaker and Cena by himself, that would look pretty stupid and I doubt that the fans would buy it. But in a battle royal, why not?

It's a win-win situation. A minor name eliminating a big star is not unrealistic, and he looks good in the process. And no one looks bad or becomes less popular by simply getting eliminated. Heck, is there anyone who has won more Rumbles than they've lost?

[chunkylover53]

Oct 13, 2011 1:44:16 GMT -5 Rolent Tex said:

I was thinking about this over in another thread. Looking back at the Royal Rumbles and Wrestlemanias during the late 90's and early 00's, the Rumble was instrumental in setting up the climax to many of their major feuds...or they used to to elevate someone to main even status.

With the introduction of the Money in the Bank match and with how Rumble winners have been treated since '06 on, has the match lost some of it's importance? The last Rumble to set up a feud into THE main event was '05 with Big Dave Batista winning and finishing off the Evolution stable by winning the title from his former running buddy Triple H.

Now...in '06, Rey Mysterio won the WHC in a three way dance in a match with Kurt Angle and Randy Orton. Orton was thrown into the match and it was rumored that Vince changed his mind to have Mysterio win the title and only went through with it due to backstage unhappiness over the decision. The match was so important that it was booked on the card UNDER the Playboy Pillow Fight.

In '07, the Undertaker won the Rumble and put the Streak on the line against Batista for the WHC. Not even Undertaker's Streak could get the match booked above the ECW Originals vs the New Breed...or hell, even Melina vs Ashley for the Women's Title.

In '08, John Cena returned to win...only to use his title shot at No Way Out. The match didn't even make it to Mania. John Cena is a sucker.

In '09, Randy Orton won and DID face Triple H in the main event...but the Rumble winner lost as...yeah, Triple H won.

In '10, Edge returned to win the Rumble...just to lose his match with Chris Jericho. The match was also booked before the 10 Divas tag match.

In '11, Alberto del Rio won just to curtain jerk Mania and lose his match with Edge.

So since the Batista win, only one Rumble winner was in the true Mania main event and not a single Rumble winner has successfully won their title match since '07. I don't see why anyone would care about the Rumble on the WWE roster when they could just work on winning the MitB, cash it in after the Mania ME (or cash in to be in the ME) and have better odds at walking out champion.

That saddens me since I used to love what the Rumble brought to big feuds...even as predictable as it was.

To be honest, I thought the Rumble lost its importance in 2003 when they first had the two World titles. Being the top champion of a company meant you were the top dog, the most important, the person fans paid to see, now you are on par with somebody else. Brand Extention or not, they should've kept the WWE Undisputed Champion as that - Undisputed. There can only be one best.

[4real]

Its become a laughing stock honestly. I still look forward to it but when I know the guy who wins the Rumble probably isn't going to get the title, or maybe not even main event, I can't take it too seriously.

Having the Elimination Chamber ppv so close to Mania doesn't help either as it's hard to get the Champion going in to have a long run

[Kevin Hamilton]

Money in the Bank has nullified its advantage; which sucks as the Rumble is a much better concept.

[Protest the Chris Hero]

The last one that really served a purpose was the 2004 one. 2005 was too much of a cluster at the end. 2006 was more about "Eddiesploitation" 2007-2010 was all big established names winning and 2011 was Alberto, who wound up winning like 3 other #1 contender opportunities....So to answer your question. Yes it's lost a lot of importance but it's still one of the funniest PPV's of the year!

[BigWill]

I don't think the order the matches are on the PPV matter nearly as much as some people think. Aside from the main event, the match order is not directly related to the importance of that match. For example, diva's matches are usually on fairly late in the card, yet no one can really argue that their matches are more important than the ones that went on before them.

[Deleted]

I will forever argue that Santino should have won the RR.

Lost it's importance? Maybe, but it's still my favorite PPV of the year.