543Y2J
Patti Mayonnaise
Seventh level .gif Master
Posts: 38,794
|
Post by 543Y2J on Dec 21, 2011 14:56:05 GMT -5
Am I the only who really enjoyed this match? I see a lot of hate on this board on the match. But I preferred it to the 2008 Rumble, the fact that there was way too many people in the ring for the eliminations to mean anything (or even get shown due to the camera work they had that night).
To me the 2004, (edit: 2005 as well the more i think about it) 2007 and 2010 are the best out of the recent years due to just the right amount of people in the ring at one time, instead of overflowing and postponing eliminations just for the spectacle of more people being in the ring. I can appreciate 10 or 11 people in the ring at one time as long as they have a purpose for being there.
I can appreciate spots in the Rumble match where there are tons of people in the ring but I wouldnt want the match to be constantly like that. Instead made to look like a big spot (like smackdown and raw siding off in the 2005 Rumble) in the match.
I think it depends on what kind of Rumble people enjoy. Less participants in the ring with more definable eliminations or more of a chaotic atmosphere?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2011 15:13:29 GMT -5
I didn't know this was considered a weak Rumble. I loved it simply because of the star power involved.
I had no idea who was going to win. Cena, HHH, HBK, Batista, Edge, Jericho, Punk, etc. There were way more possible winners than usual.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,200
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Dec 21, 2011 15:15:56 GMT -5
It's not so much about how many people are out there, it's about WHAT people are out there.
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Dec 21, 2011 15:18:45 GMT -5
Actually, I always thought it was relatively well received, what with CM Punk preaching and eliminating, Beth Phoenix in the Rumble and Edge making a surprise return. The main gripe I always heard was that the eliminations were fast. And while I understand why that's bad, I also give credit to WWE for experimenting. That can be said for the 1995 Rumble, as bad as one-minute intervals are, of course.
As for the best in recent years, I agree 2004 and 2007 were fun. But instead of 2010, I'd throw in 2005.
|
|
|
Post by Big Daddy Bad Booking on Dec 21, 2011 16:00:38 GMT -5
Actually, I always thought it was relatively well received, what with CM Punk preaching and eliminating, Beth Phoenix in the Rumble and Edge making a surprise return. The main gripe I always heard was that the eliminations were fast. And while I understand why that's bad, I also give credit to WWE for experimenting. That can be said for the 1995 Rumble, as bad as one-minute intervals are, of course. As for the best in recent years, I agree 2004 and 2007 were fun. But instead of 2010, I'd throw in 2005. I'd say 2005 is almost tied with 2004. Best CHOREOGRAPHED Rumble match in history, also with the most historic botch of Vince's career.
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Dec 21, 2011 17:07:10 GMT -5
The thing about the 2010 Rumble was that the midcard was treated awfully there. Especially ECW, during its month in existence, didn't have a single entrant last longer than 90 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Dec 21, 2011 17:20:42 GMT -5
AMAZING Rumble.
Ziggler and Bourne putting over the Rumble as anyone's to win, CM Punk's Straight Edge Telethon, Shawn Michaels going nuts and the return of Edge. GREAT Rumble.
|
|
And_5400
Trap-Jaw
Congratulations......Does a bus run through here?
Posts: 490
|
Post by And_5400 on Dec 21, 2011 17:28:50 GMT -5
I didn't like it because to me they buried most of the roster in favour of about five guys, CM Punk, Triple H, HBK, John Cena and Edge(only because he won). They dominated everyone else and there was far too many quick eliminations.
|
|
|
Post by jivesoulbrah on Dec 21, 2011 18:14:12 GMT -5
OMG I HATED this Rumble. Terribly booked. The buried the hell out of the midcard and made Shawn Michaels and John Cena look like supermen. Not only that but how the hell are you down to three people by entrant #30? The beginning was good, Ziggler/Bourne was a fun 90 seconds and CM Punk was awesome until HHH came in. After that it just went downhill. It got semi-packed in the middle but everyone was all on one side and it just seemed like there were a crapload of heels. After Michaels/HHH eliminated everyone the entrants made no sense. We had Shelton Benjamin, Yoshi Tatsu quickly eliminated. Then you have Big Show and Mark Henry struggle with each other and Chris Masters out of nowhere which didn't really fit in. It felt like Farooq in the 2002 rumble. Then R freakin Truth eliminated two behemoths? Then its back to quick eliminations with Kofi, Swagger and Truth. Then we have Jericho, Edge (with a lack of a HUGE return feeling) and Batista. I hated this rumble so much. 2009 made everyone look good, a lot of close eliminations and midcarders got to shine, but this Rumble was just awful. Still not as bad as 1997 or 1993, but still one of the worst of all time.
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Dec 21, 2011 18:21:15 GMT -5
I liked it.
I'm also partial to 2003. Hate 2006 with a passion. I tried watching it again not to long ago just to see if I could do it.
I couldn't.
|
|
|
Post by jivesoulbrah on Dec 21, 2011 18:43:43 GMT -5
From 2000-2010 Id say the best to worst is:
2001 2003 2007 2009 2005 2004 2008 2000
Then it starts getttin to the bad: 2006 2002 2010
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 28,016
|
Post by chazraps on Dec 21, 2011 19:04:45 GMT -5
My biggest problem with the 2004 Rumble is that Benoit really didn't do anything of note in the match other than enter first and win it. His presence really otherwise was of no consequence, kind of killing his victory for me. I know it was a great moment at the time because we were all waiting to see if they would finally pull the trigger on Benoit, but once you know he wins his performance isn't really anything of note.
2007 and 2005 were fun Rumbles, 2003 is under-appreciated, especially as the last great commentary performance of Jerry Lawler. Until this thread I've never heard an unkind word about the 2010 Rumble and I followed it (as well as the 2005 Rumble) as it happened live on this very forum.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Dec 21, 2011 19:09:55 GMT -5
I hated this Rumble. The majority of the guys got eliminated in like 20 seconds and there was maybe one time where a good amount of people were in the ring at once. Batista was #30 and when he came out, only three other guys were left in the ring. That and Edge's return which was pretty obvious at that point fell flat to me.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,320
|
Post by The Ichi on Dec 21, 2011 19:14:20 GMT -5
My only requirement when it comes to a Rumble is that I can't predict the winner. Since I couldn't here, it was a good Rumble.
|
|
Gummydavidson
Dennis Stamp
Johnny Davidson for Prime Minister!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Gummydavidson on Dec 21, 2011 19:29:55 GMT -5
Pat Patterson didn't book the 2010 Rumble so no wonder why it sucked so hard
|
|
clifford
King Koopa
Shingo Takagi stan
Posts: 10,683
|
Post by clifford on Dec 21, 2011 20:01:23 GMT -5
Pat Patterson didn't book the 2010 Rumble so no wonder why it sucked so hard There's a gay joke in there somewhere. Anyway, my favourite rumbles of the last few years were the 2005 and 2007 ones. I particularly loved the little 'mini match' HBK and Taker had at the end of the latter. The 2010 one I quite liked, as it had a few storylines flowing through it e.g. Punk's run, HBK desperately wanting to win to face Taker, Edge's return etc.
|
|
|
Post by Cam on Dec 21, 2011 20:25:48 GMT -5
I think 2010 was a good Rumble, but I preferred 2008. I don't know why, I just really like 2008.
|
|
DragonMasterP
King Koopa
Wait, I turned 30? How'd that happen?
Posts: 11,996
|
Post by DragonMasterP on Dec 21, 2011 20:36:48 GMT -5
The Rumble was a good one, but I hated that the highest amount in a ring at once was about five or so.
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Dec 21, 2011 20:59:07 GMT -5
The Rumble was a good one, but I hated that the highest amount in a ring at once was about five or so. Yeah, that was my big problem with the 2010 Rumble; the ring never really filled up with lots of guys at once, which is usually when the Rumbles start getting really fun. It was probably compensation for '09, which went exactly the opposite way and had a TON of guys who stayed in the ring for huge stretches.
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Dec 21, 2011 21:22:25 GMT -5
I just found the 2010 Rumble to be really boring. Aside from the Punk sermons and HBK going crazy, nothing interesting really happened.
There were just too many occurrences where a guy would come in, hit his finishers then get quickly eliminated a minute or two later.
It's not the worst, but it's on the lower end of quality Rumbles.
|
|