|
Post by memphis25 on Jan 14, 2013 2:31:30 GMT -5
It would kill the gimmick unless the winner went on to get a monster push. To me it makes it more real, i.e. there are upsets in real sports all the time why can't a midcarder get lucky and shock the world once? There are upsets in sports but the big underdogs very rarely ever beats all the odds to win something big. That's why you have the hope spots where a underdog can tease a win like Santino or go on a spurt and toss a few guys like Nash did.
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Jan 14, 2013 2:59:58 GMT -5
It would kill the gimmick unless the winner went on to get a monster push. I don't think the winner needs to have a monster push. I would rather someone win, and while they may not win the title, they'd still have the Rumble win on their resume to give them credibility and make them look like a threat. Like I'd rather see stars made just by winning the Rumble, rather than simply slapping the WHC on them and expecting us to actually believe they're on the same level as the WWE Champion. The reason why the Rumble is such a successful event each year is whoever wins it is viewed as a big deal by the company and big things are coming for that person including a high profile match on the biggest show of the year and a big title win right around the corner. The Rumble doesn't really make stars, the stars make the Rumble and those stars are made from the big push in the most important time of the WWE year that comes following it. If you win it and go on to lose the big match and slide back down a notch below the main even then winning does nothing for you and it hurts the Rumble itself which is a draw.
|
|
|
Post by "Dashing" Dr.VonPhoenix on Jan 14, 2013 3:20:08 GMT -5
Why they didn't do it with Santino still baffles me. There were several ways to either book him as the Rocky-like underdog for Mania or have him lose the shot before then, but that was a "moment" they just completely blew. That place would have EXPLODED if he won. This is an awesome topic. Much of it is due to the truth in this post. A lot of us really really want an unexpected Rumble winner. Not like Vince in 1999 (that was f***ing stupid), but like a random mid carder, or one of the guys from Japan, or some indy kid, or God, or a chair. Just something that happens at the end where everyone goes "WHAT THE f***??!!!" and it's a big deal. The Royal Rumble could be the most random and hilarious of WWE pay-per-views.... but it never really has been. Doesn't stop people from dreaming, though. I'm still holding out for the year freakin' Tatanka wins it. I want to believe that anyone could do it. In truth, though. It's always a continuation of the year before's storyline and nothing more. This year's likely winner? John Cena. And for this, I hate Earth. RAGE
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Jan 14, 2013 4:25:29 GMT -5
I agree, they dropped the ball big time with Santino not winning it. This year I hope someone random, but over wins it but it'll probably be Sheamus.... yawn.
Hope Ricky Steamboat wins it. He can still go in the ring if he's anywhere near as good as he was during that feud with Jericho... he'd be a good choice for the legend winning it.
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Jan 14, 2013 4:30:50 GMT -5
How about Wade Barrett winning the Rumble and challenging Alberto Del Rio?
That could actually be a fun personality clash.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 14, 2013 4:46:20 GMT -5
I don't think the winner needs to have a monster push. I would rather someone win, and while they may not win the title, they'd still have the Rumble win on their resume to give them credibility and make them look like a threat. Like I'd rather see stars made just by winning the Rumble, rather than simply slapping the WHC on them and expecting us to actually believe they're on the same level as the WWE Champion. The reason why the Rumble is such a successful event each year is whoever wins it is viewed as a big deal by the company and big things are coming for that person including a high profile match on the biggest show of the year and a big title win right around the corner. The Rumble doesn't really make stars, the stars make the Rumble and those stars are made from the big push in the most important time of the WWE year that comes following it. If you win it and go on to lose the big match and slide back down a notch below the main even then winning does nothing for you and it hurts the Rumble itself which is a draw. I was thinking more along the lines of someone like Santino Marella, Zack Ryder, or Alex Riley (guys who are low enough to be "unexpected" but over enough to get a reaction) winning the Rumble, losing their title match, and rather than going back into obscurity, they're kept at that same upper tier level that the likes of Orton, Miz, Ziggler, Kane, Bryan, etc. are at. He wouldn't become a World Champion, but he'd still be higher up the card than he was before winning the Rumble. The person in question would enter that regular rotation of guys that WWE makes an active effort to put on RAW/PPV all the time.
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Jan 14, 2013 5:45:57 GMT -5
I was thinking more along the lines of someone like Santino Marella, Zack Ryder, or Alex Riley (guys who are low enough to be "unexpected" but over enough to get a reaction) winning the Rumble, losing their title match, and rather than going back into obscurity, they're kept at that same upper tier level that the likes of Orton, Miz, Ziggler, Kane, Bryan, etc. are at. He wouldn't become a World Champion, but he'd still be higher up the card than he was before winning the Rumble. The person in question would enter that regular rotation of guys that WWE makes an active effort to put on RAW/PPV all the time. Alex Riley is the only one who would have a shot since he hasn't been booked to look so weak for such a long time but to have him or anyone else on that level would never work IMO. You may get a shock pop but it would be short before everyone started to think WTF. This time of the year is where WWE makes or breaks its year so it would be a bad business move to break from the successful tradition of what makes the RR and all the Mania build work. The road to WrestleMania isn't a good time to experiment with all the money on the line. The Money in the Bank PPV is the one where you can make new guys. The success rate of the winners give the winner a creditability boost before the win. Its a ladder match so anyone can win it without having to survive the RR odds with names in late so an underdog winner is more believable. Its not in the money time of the year so if the guy can't run with the ball you don't kill an over gimmick like the RR and its not a black eye on the flagship PPV having a highly promoted match flop. Also since you can cash in on a downed champion you can let a lesser talent have a run with the title and if he fails it doesn't hurt the title as bad since most are cashed in with the odds against the champion. There's a formula to why this works and why they never go with nobodies to win it once it became established, because the second just another guy wins one it will be just another PPV and not something that sparks at least a half years worth of top of the card storylines.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Jan 14, 2013 14:00:50 GMT -5
I was thinking more along the lines of someone like Santino Marella, Zack Ryder, or Alex Riley (guys who are low enough to be "unexpected" but over enough to get a reaction) winning the Rumble, losing their title match, and rather than going back into obscurity, they're kept at that same upper tier level that the likes of Orton, Miz, Ziggler, Kane, Bryan, etc. are at. He wouldn't become a World Champion, but he'd still be higher up the card than he was before winning the Rumble. The person in question would enter that regular rotation of guys that WWE makes an active effort to put on RAW/PPV all the time. Alex Riley is the only one who would have a shot since he hasn't been booked to look so weak for such a long time but to have him or anyone else on that level would never work IMO. You may get a shock pop but it would be short before everyone started to think WTF. This time of the year is where WWE makes or breaks its year so it would be a bad business move to break from the successful tradition of what makes the RR and all the Mania build work. The road to WrestleMania isn't a good time to experiment with all the money on the line. The Money in the Bank PPV is the one where you can make new guys. The success rate of the winners give the winner a creditability boost before the win. Its a ladder match so anyone can win it without having to survive the RR odds with names in late so an underdog winner is more believable. Its not in the money time of the year so if the guy can't run with the ball you don't kill an over gimmick like the RR and its not a black eye on the flagship PPV having a highly promoted match flop. Also since you can cash in on a downed champion you can let a lesser talent have a run with the title and if he fails it doesn't hurt the title as bad since most are cashed in with the odds against the champion. There's a formula to why this works and why they never go with nobodies to win it once it became established, because the second just another guy wins one it will be just another PPV and not something that sparks at least a half years worth of top of the card storylines. This is the absolute perfect time to experiment since the Rumble hasn't had a more high profile match in Rock/Cena in years, if ever. The Rumble match itself is a distant second to that draw. If they do what you propose, Rock's taking the title, Cena's winning the rumble, and Rock/Cena stare down in what would be the most predictable conclusion in the history of anything.
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Jan 14, 2013 14:04:47 GMT -5
wouldn't someone "completely random" be someone with the left knee of Bradshaw, the right arm of Don E. Allen, the neck of The Crusher, the back of Joe Gomez, etc etc etc?
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 14, 2013 14:12:05 GMT -5
I was thinking more along the lines of someone like Santino Marella, Zack Ryder, or Alex Riley (guys who are low enough to be "unexpected" but over enough to get a reaction) winning the Rumble, losing their title match, and rather than going back into obscurity, they're kept at that same upper tier level that the likes of Orton, Miz, Ziggler, Kane, Bryan, etc. are at. He wouldn't become a World Champion, but he'd still be higher up the card than he was before winning the Rumble. The person in question would enter that regular rotation of guys that WWE makes an active effort to put on RAW/PPV all the time. Alex Riley is the only one who would have a shot since he hasn't been booked to look so weak for such a long time but to have him or anyone else on that level would never work IMO. You may get a shock pop but it would be short before everyone started to think WTF. This time of the year is where WWE makes or breaks its year so it would be a bad business move to break from the successful tradition of what makes the RR and all the Mania build work. The road to WrestleMania isn't a good time to experiment with all the money on the line. The Money in the Bank PPV is the one where you can make new guys. The success rate of the winners give the winner a creditability boost before the win. Its a ladder match so anyone can win it without having to survive the RR odds with names in late so an underdog winner is more believable. Its not in the money time of the year so if the guy can't run with the ball you don't kill an over gimmick like the RR and its not a black eye on the flagship PPV having a highly promoted match flop. Also since you can cash in on a downed champion you can let a lesser talent have a run with the title and if he fails it doesn't hurt the title as bad since most are cashed in with the odds against the champion. There's a formula to why this works and why they never go with nobodies to win it once it became established, because the second just another guy wins one it will be just another PPV and not something that sparks at least a half years worth of top of the card storylines. Yes, but in cases like WM 28, where we had Rock vs. Cena, or WM29 which will featured another appearance by The Rock, in addition to Brock Lesnar, you have megastars who can carry the event while they test the new guy out. Someone like Alex Riley could win the Rumble, and be inserted into a potential feud against the WWE or World Heavyweight Champion. While Rock, Cena, Lesnar or whomever would be the true main event of the show that sells all the tickets, and PPV buys. Although I like the guy, I'm not suggesting that he actually win the championship. Just put on a strong showing against the champion in front of a huge audience. I like the concept of Money in the Bank, but I'm tired of the cashing in on a downed champion scenario. If MiTB is meant to be the star making moment, then the winner needs to have a legit match against the champion, win or lose.
|
|
Turd Ferguson
Hank Scorpio
John Cena: Colossal Douche
Posts: 7,402
|
Post by Turd Ferguson on Jan 14, 2013 14:31:50 GMT -5
Like Johnny Stamboli?
|
|