Rumble title shots

[hulksmash87]

Should they have made the stipulation that the winner of the royal rumble gets a title shot at wrestlemania from the very beginning?

[repomark]

Not sure what they would have done in 1990 as Hogan couldn’t have wrestled himself at mania 6 (although to be fair Warrior winning that rumble match would have made so much more sense).

88 was a test run and only 20 guys, so Duggan was not getting a title shot (although he was in the mania 4 tournament).

89 Big John Studd was no longer main event material, though they could easily have had hogan win instead to set up the Savage match.

90 as above.

91 there was no such stipulation but hogan ended up wrestling slaughter for the belt anyway.

92 the belt was on the line in the match.

Looking at that - I think probably no on balance. By 93 it was properly established enough to add that stipulation.

[Mozenrath]

I forget, when did it formally become the stipulation?

[mrpeacock]

Dec 21, 2020 3:20:13 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

I forget, when did it formally become the stipulation?

1993 and on. So WM 9 was the first Mania with that stipulation going in.

[Futureraven: Beelzebruv]

They changed it at the right time, for the first few the novelty was enough to sell it and the business being what it was the match itself being a kayfabe achievement in itself.

But after a few years the novelty wears off and you need some actual stakes.

Look at King of the Ring, apart from 1 or 2 times that was just a tournament for midcarders and having it yearly when it didn't have any consequences attached, they're just random matches and it faded into the background. Owen's win showed how you could use it to help propel someone to the main event.

Or Survivor Series, a novelty that sold itself the first few years which became just another PPV. There have been a few with stakes, WWE v WCW, Austin v Bishoff, the disbanding of the Authority but generally people don't care about the team matches because there's nothing on the line.

[Milkman Norm]

No. The first one was to say FU to Crockett & to set up the Main Event, the second was to further the collapse of the Mega Powers. They needed the angle at the Main Event II to set up the title match at Wrestlemania V.

[karl100589]

Dec 21, 2020 11:00:59 GMT -5 Milkman Norm said:

No. The first one was to say FU to Crockett & to set up the Main Event, the second was to further the collapse of the Mega Powers. They needed the angle at the Main Event II to set up the title match at Wrestlemania V.

They could've had Hogan winning the title shot as an instigator for the implosion. Hogan promises Savage he won't enter for the sake of his friendship only to go back on it and win.

* 1990 would have Warrior winning to set up the Hogan match ala real life.

* Hogan wins in 1991 to set up his main event with Slaughter.

* Not sure about 1988 though. I guess you could have Andre win to set up the Hogan rematch, but gets advised by Heenan to do the match at Main Event. Either that or Dibiase wins and gets a bye to the final of the WM4 tourney.

[Venti]

Im not sure. I think Mania's 88 thru 90 were booked fine without the Rumble winner getting a title shot. It has evolved fine over the years the way it has.

I do like when it's for the world title. The 1992 Rumble is one of my favorites, and I liked when they did it again in 2016.

[HMARK Center]

It did seem that '93 was the start of it in large part so they could start elevating some new names to the main event, given that '93 was the butt end of the Hulkamania era and the real transition to the New Generation, and in that regard the run of Rumbles from '93-'98 did that pretty damn well (Yoko, Bret, Luger, HBK, Austin as winners).

Said it in the WWE main board, but I do think they should've done away with the WM stipulation awhile ago, or if they wanted to keep it they should've reorganized who's allowed to enter the Rumble. It worked better in the early 90s when the named stars were a lot more protected via fewer TV matches and more jobber squashes, but today it feels crazy that unknowns, jobbers, retired wrestlers, etc. all enter and that the promotion would, in kayfabe, be perfectly fine with them main eventing the biggest show of the year. Feel like once they got to 1999 or so they should've adjusted it so either only top ranked wrestlers could qualify for it (with maybe a couple 'wild card' spots open for surprise entrants), or they should've fined tuned the 'Mania stipulation in some other way to avoid the sense every year that there's only a few entrants with a legitimate chance of winning.

[sungod2020]

Dec 21, 2020 16:23:21 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

It did seem that '93 was the start of it in large part so they could start elevating some new names to the main event, given that '93 was the butt end of the Hulkamania era and the real transition to the New Generation, and in that regard the run of Rumbles from '93-'98 did that pretty damn well (Yoko, Bret, Luger, HBK, Austin as winners).

Said it in the WWE main board, but I do think they should've done away with the WM stipulation awhile ago, or if they wanted to keep it they should've reorganized who's allowed to enter the Rumble. It worked better in the early 90s when the named stars were a lot more protected via fewer TV matches and more jobber squashes, but today it feels crazy that unknowns, jobbers, retired wrestlers, etc. all enter and that the promotion would, in kayfabe, be perfectly fine with them main eventing the biggest show of the year. Feel like once they got to 1999 or so they should've adjusted it so either only top ranked wrestlers could qualify for it (with maybe a couple 'wild card' spots open for surprise entrants), or they should've fined tuned the 'Mania stipulation in some other way to avoid the sense every year that there's only a few entrants with a legitimate chance of winning.

It's really a double edge sword in a way. While it maybe a nice surprise to have someone different and random win the Rumble, it can potentially hinder interest in that year's Wrestlemania by having anyone below the upper midcard winning it(not that ratings and buyrates weren't suffering already). It's booking yourself into a corner 101.

[Cranjis McBasketball]

Dec 21, 2020 11:00:59 GMT -5 Milkman Norm said:

No. The first one was to say FU to Crockett & to set up the Main Event, the second was to further the collapse of the Mega Powers. They needed the angle at the Main Event II to set up the title match at Wrestlemania V.

It was an FU to Crockett and they still did a segment that feels like it runs an hour of Dino Bravo lifting weights.

[Milkman Norm]

Dec 21, 2020 18:32:40 GMT -5 Cranjis McBasketball said:

Dec 21, 2020 11:00:59 GMT -5 Milkman Norm said:

No. The first one was to say FU to Crockett & to set up the Main Event, the second was to further the collapse of the Mega Powers. They needed the angle at the Main Event II to set up the title match at Wrestlemania V.

It was an FU to Crockett and they still did a segment that feels like it runs an hour of Dino Bravo lifting weights.

Vince put a 2 hour commercial on cable the night of a Crockett ppv to promote his network TV special in which he was going to beat his top babyface via pinfall for first time ever with a f*** finish to set up his ppv the following April. Ballsy.

[HMARK Center]

Dec 21, 2020 18:29:46 GMT -5 sungod2020 said:

Dec 21, 2020 16:23:21 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

It did seem that '93 was the start of it in large part so they could start elevating some new names to the main event, given that '93 was the butt end of the Hulkamania era and the real transition to the New Generation, and in that regard the run of Rumbles from '93-'98 did that pretty damn well (Yoko, Bret, Luger, HBK, Austin as winners).

Said it in the WWE main board, but I do think they should've done away with the WM stipulation awhile ago, or if they wanted to keep it they should've reorganized who's allowed to enter the Rumble. It worked better in the early 90s when the named stars were a lot more protected via fewer TV matches and more jobber squashes, but today it feels crazy that unknowns, jobbers, retired wrestlers, etc. all enter and that the promotion would, in kayfabe, be perfectly fine with them main eventing the biggest show of the year. Feel like once they got to 1999 or so they should've adjusted it so either only top ranked wrestlers could qualify for it (with maybe a couple 'wild card' spots open for surprise entrants), or they should've fined tuned the 'Mania stipulation in some other way to avoid the sense every year that there's only a few entrants with a legitimate chance of winning.

It's really a double edge sword in a way. While it maybe a nice surprise to have someone different and random win the Rumble, it can potentially hinder interest in that year's Wrestlemania by having anyone below the upper midcard winning it(not that ratings and buyrates weren't suffering already). It's booking yourself into a corner 101.

Yeah, just have to figure out some other type of stakes people can fight for. Otherwise, if you want to keep the Mania main event stip then like I said take the 30 spots and make it so wrestlers have to qualify for the Rumble, gives some people something to wrestle for late in the year and adds some juice to otherwise less interesting matches...and sure, announce that a couple of the Rumble spots will be "wild cards" for surprise entrants or what have you.

Looking back at the older Rumbles, it does make me wonder how things might've been different if the Rumble match itself was kept as the biggest deal, and thus a win in the Rumble could serve as a springboard for an up and comer or somewhat surprising winner. Big John Studd's win was supposed to lead to a match for him at WM V, but his body just didn't hold up and he took that ref spot in the Jake/Andre match, instead; kind of curious how things might've been different had he stayed healthy.