Booking Challenge: Eliminate the Rumble WM Title Match Stip
Jan 19, 2015 19:20:53 GMT -5
DZ: WF Legacy likes this
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 19, 2015 19:20:53 GMT -5
Given all the talk about crowd mutinies at the Rumble (either last year's or the potential for one this year), I found myself thinking that maybe WWE could avoid all this sturm und drang if they simply got rid of the "Winner of the Rumble gets a Title Shot at WM!" stipulation. That way, it wouldn't feel like one person "had" to win, or risk having a major push derailed or what have you.
But then I also tried to think of what would have to be done to maintain interest in the Rumble if that stipulation wasn't there, and I realized that might be a tough nut to crack.
So what do you guys say? If you were given the chance, would you change what a wrestler received for winning the Rumble? Would you change anything major about the way WWE books the whole "Road to Wrestlemania" season?
Possible Pros:
-It'd vary who could win; if a title shot at the biggest show of the year is at stake, you're basically stuck realizing "Ok, only a guy who we know is a main eventer, or just about to be one, is going to win this." Dropping that opens the door to maybe a midcarder who's in line for a solid push getting the win.
-Besides, Rumbles are supposed to be chaotic, so having more random winners makes the match more realistic; a midcarder who draws #28 should probably stand a better chance than a near main eventer who draws #6. Doesn't mean they have to win or anything, but it feels silly when you get down to the last five and can tick off on a couple fingers who's obviously getting eliminated next.
-It could freshen up the way feuds are built going into 'Mania. Maybe instead of a title shot, the winner receives a genie wish, so to speak; yes, they could receive a title shot, but maybe they want a guaranteed feud blowoff cage match against a hated rival at 'Mania, instead. Again, it'd just freshen things up, open up more booking options, and let the prize selected reflect the traits of the character choosing the reward.
-This one is more a personal quibble of mine, but I also just dislike the use of a Rumble format match to determine not only a #1 contender, but the top contender on your biggest show of the year! Again, the point of a Rumble is that it's chaotic: so (pretending it was real for a second), what would they have done if El Torito had won last year? You wouldn't risk a WM buyrate on that. Also, how many draw a number in the 20s and win, and then do the stupid "survived 29 other men!" line even though they were only in for 10 minutes? C'mon, your top contender for the biggest show of the year ought to be somebody who's already near the top, not somebody who, again, in the kayfabe universe, often wins by chance.
Possible Cons:
-Let's face it, we're all used to the title match stip (been there since 1993 and Yokozuna); it's a solid piece of the Rumble's allure, so you'd have to make sure you have a REALLY good replacement in mind if you got rid of it.
-Today's day and age simply isn't the same as the old days. Sure, it was ok for Hacksaw Jim Duggan and Big John Studd to win the first two Rumbles; fans weren't being told to expect a major title match for either of them, the match was still young enough that people were just getting used to it, and fans were more easily entertained by just the visual of so many big name wrestlers being in the ring at the same time. In an era without jobber squashes and with "supercards" every week on Raw, that's harder to pull off.
I guess if this were a debate, I'd put this down as the proposition for everybody to respond "yea" or "nay" to: "The Royal Rumble is a major event that suffers from being too predictable, due to the Wrestlemania title match stipulation. Thus, the stipulation should be changed."
Yea? Nay? Why or why not?
But then I also tried to think of what would have to be done to maintain interest in the Rumble if that stipulation wasn't there, and I realized that might be a tough nut to crack.
So what do you guys say? If you were given the chance, would you change what a wrestler received for winning the Rumble? Would you change anything major about the way WWE books the whole "Road to Wrestlemania" season?
Possible Pros:
-It'd vary who could win; if a title shot at the biggest show of the year is at stake, you're basically stuck realizing "Ok, only a guy who we know is a main eventer, or just about to be one, is going to win this." Dropping that opens the door to maybe a midcarder who's in line for a solid push getting the win.
-Besides, Rumbles are supposed to be chaotic, so having more random winners makes the match more realistic; a midcarder who draws #28 should probably stand a better chance than a near main eventer who draws #6. Doesn't mean they have to win or anything, but it feels silly when you get down to the last five and can tick off on a couple fingers who's obviously getting eliminated next.
-It could freshen up the way feuds are built going into 'Mania. Maybe instead of a title shot, the winner receives a genie wish, so to speak; yes, they could receive a title shot, but maybe they want a guaranteed feud blowoff cage match against a hated rival at 'Mania, instead. Again, it'd just freshen things up, open up more booking options, and let the prize selected reflect the traits of the character choosing the reward.
-This one is more a personal quibble of mine, but I also just dislike the use of a Rumble format match to determine not only a #1 contender, but the top contender on your biggest show of the year! Again, the point of a Rumble is that it's chaotic: so (pretending it was real for a second), what would they have done if El Torito had won last year? You wouldn't risk a WM buyrate on that. Also, how many draw a number in the 20s and win, and then do the stupid "survived 29 other men!" line even though they were only in for 10 minutes? C'mon, your top contender for the biggest show of the year ought to be somebody who's already near the top, not somebody who, again, in the kayfabe universe, often wins by chance.
Possible Cons:
-Let's face it, we're all used to the title match stip (been there since 1993 and Yokozuna); it's a solid piece of the Rumble's allure, so you'd have to make sure you have a REALLY good replacement in mind if you got rid of it.
-Today's day and age simply isn't the same as the old days. Sure, it was ok for Hacksaw Jim Duggan and Big John Studd to win the first two Rumbles; fans weren't being told to expect a major title match for either of them, the match was still young enough that people were just getting used to it, and fans were more easily entertained by just the visual of so many big name wrestlers being in the ring at the same time. In an era without jobber squashes and with "supercards" every week on Raw, that's harder to pull off.
I guess if this were a debate, I'd put this down as the proposition for everybody to respond "yea" or "nay" to: "The Royal Rumble is a major event that suffers from being too predictable, due to the Wrestlemania title match stipulation. Thus, the stipulation should be changed."
Yea? Nay? Why or why not?