|
Post by krazysane on Jan 29, 2007 11:22:36 GMT -5
to see taker an hbk in the ring together again was all worth it
|
|
|
Post by valley22 on Jan 29, 2007 11:31:40 GMT -5
Dont get me wrong..I loved Taker vs. HBK. Classic. But it was in TEXAS, so ya knew HBK was gonna be in the last two. Also have Kennedy beat Batista and have him lose at No Way Out. Then you get your Taker vs. Batista match. Right now Batista vs. Taker or Cena vs. Orton/Edge doesnt make me wanna buy Wrestlemainia. I'd buy Cena vs. Taker or even have Cena lose to HBK at Raw (remember when the WWE Championship changed hands on Raw..that was good stuff) then have HBK vs. Undertaker at Wrestlemaina...I'd buy that.
|
|
|
Post by -Lithium- on Jan 29, 2007 11:59:27 GMT -5
There were atleast 4 that had a real shot at winning. Meh, this thread was gonna get made no matter what...
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Jan 29, 2007 12:01:23 GMT -5
The most predictable Rumble ever was 2004. Unless you were and idiot, you knew Benoit was winning.
|
|
|
Post by -Lithium- on Jan 29, 2007 12:05:04 GMT -5
Naw that goes to 98, everyone, "marks" and "smarks" included, knew Austin was gonna win...
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Jan 29, 2007 12:09:43 GMT -5
Naw that goes to 98, everyone, "marks" and "smarks" included, knew Austin was gonna win... That one, too. Along with last year.
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Jan 29, 2007 12:13:21 GMT -5
I thought the Rumble's winner itself was very unpredictable. When you think about it, it's Undertaker's first Rumble win ever. He also is the first person to ever win a Rumble at #30, and he's also the first "big guy" to win one since Big John Studd in 1989. Well, it didn't help that Cole made an explicit point that there has never been a 30th entrant who has ever won the thing. So, if I was watching Taker come out at #30, I would have pretty much bet the farm he was going to win.
|
|
PrimeTyme
Dennis Stamp
Be Good. Or Be Good At It
Posts: 4,926
|
Post by PrimeTyme on Jan 29, 2007 12:34:18 GMT -5
I was very surprised at the Rumble match. It kept me on the edge of my seat cheering on most of the guys all match. Of course I hate spoilers so I didn't hear of any plans leading to last night. Although I had it narrowed down to 4 that could win, Rated RKO, HBK, and Taker. And when it got down to those 4 I didn't know who would take it. So to me the match wasn't predictable, and it was a damn enetertaining show.
|
|
|
Post by ghettooverlord on Jan 29, 2007 12:35:15 GMT -5
I thought the Rumble's winner itself was very unpredictable. When you think about it, it's Undertaker's first Rumble win ever. He also is the first person to ever win a Rumble at #30, and he's also the first "big guy" to win one since Big John Studd in 1989. Well, it didn't help that Cole made an explicit point that there has never been a 30th entrant who has ever won the thing. So, if I was watching Taker come out at #30, I would have pretty much bet the farm he was going to win. Don't they do that every year?
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jan 29, 2007 12:51:36 GMT -5
I knew Taker was winning this one from the beginning. Just like I knew Shawn would make it to the end. Most predictable one I've watched live, by far.
I told my friends watching with me, "There are 26 guys in this match I'd like to win, and none of them will."
|
|
chiefdom
Don Corleone
1/2 of the FPEL Tag Team Champions
Posts: 1,523
|
Post by chiefdom on Jan 29, 2007 12:56:38 GMT -5
i dont read spoilers - but the storyline on smackdown made me believe that Undertaker HAD to win... Which is kinda disappointing, cause it was still up in the air until batista got Undertaker disqualified...
|
|
|
Post by FCVDave on Jan 29, 2007 13:13:06 GMT -5
when it got down to the final two I had no idea who was going to win. I was rooting for Taker. It was intense stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2007 13:30:24 GMT -5
If there wasn't any rumors about the Batista vs Undertaker match at wrestlemania from internet, the RR would hardly be predictable at all. Very good point, if the Rumble was predictable at all I'm sure there's a chance that it's because of something you read online that made you expect it more. When we had RKO, Taker and Michaels in the ring I didn't have a CLUE who would take it, they built up the possibility of either four of them. I made a point to avoid any possible spoiler or anything close, so the only thing I knew between Batista/Taker was the few run ins they had on Smackdown. The WWE sure dropped the ball by letting me read spoilers and booking according to what they said!
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jan 29, 2007 13:36:39 GMT -5
Regardless of how predictable it was (and it was), it was still a lot of fun until Khali walked out. Because I enjoyed everything up to that point, I think it was a fun match. I just didn't want the 50-year-old-hasbeen--escuse me, the Undertaker--to win.
|
|
|
Post by skskillz on Jan 29, 2007 13:37:53 GMT -5
Off the top of my head, Hogan in 1991, Austin in 1998, Rock in 2000, and Lesnar in 2003 (?) were the most predictable. I wasn't paying much attention to this Rumble though.
|
|
|
Post by The Boss on Jan 29, 2007 13:53:43 GMT -5
I'm just glad that nobody went all the way to win it. It was making me sick. I'm glad that we finally got back to the luck of the draw playing a crucial roll in determining the winner. We also got back to having two winners. The last man in the ring and the man who lasted the longest. It wasn't the best Rumble ever, but it was the best in a long time. I thought the Rumble's winner itself was very unpredictable. When you think about it, it's Undertaker's first Rumble win ever. He also is the first person to ever win a Rumble at #30, and he's also the first "big guy" to win one since Big John Studd in 1989. HOLLYWOOD HULK HOGAN won it in 1990 & 1991 and Yokozuna won it in 1993.
|
|
|
Post by The Boss on Jan 29, 2007 14:02:50 GMT -5
Off the top of my head, Hogan in 1991, Austin in 1998, Rock in 2000, and Lesnar in 2003 (?) were the most predictable. I wasn't paying much attention to this Rumble though. Unfortunately anything after 1992 in usually predictable because you know it has to be someone who can be used in the main event at WrestleMania and therefore at least 25 guys are immediately eliminated as potential winners. I didn't think HOLLYWOOD HULK HOGAN'S 1991 was all that predictable. Originally the winner was supposed to be the returning Andre the Giant which would have been a perfect cap to his career. But his career ending injury in Japan prevented his participation. This left me feeling unsatisfied with that year,s Rumble (although in retrospect it was a pretty good Rumble). With Andre the Giant out of the event HOLLYWOOD HULK HOGAN won it.
|
|
|
Post by Tea & Crumpets on Jan 29, 2007 14:11:18 GMT -5
That's what I got off of seeing the results this morning (I decided not to get the PPV and couldn't check the computer last night.) It seems like it wouldn't have taken a genius to see how last night went. No titles changed hands, hell, no HEEL even won last night, which seems like a giant "Screw You" to all those guys, and it seemed like every match was booked exactly how the last few months of WWE have been booked. Even the Rumble seemed predictable (Khali comes in, destroys a buncha guys, and the only man to eliminate him is the Undertakah! Then, it's down to HBK, Taker, and Rated RKO, and Taker gets the WM ticket.) Is it just me, or did anyone else see this coming? I called the final 4 months before the Rumble. Announcing everybody in the match killed a great deal of excitement. Having Booker, Kane, Punk and RVD go out like cannon fodder while MVP gets to the final 5 really made those 2 Smackdown guys and 2 'Extremists' (God I hate that name) look poor- Punk did have an excellent showing, far better than I expected, but his relatively insignificant elimination hurt him. Booker got tossed by Kane like a jobber, then Booker tossed Kane after and it counted, stupid stupid stupid. Similar story with Jeff Hardy, he's over yet gets tossed out and is nearly missed by the camera. The moment HBK got RKOed out of the ring I knew HBK and Taker would be the final 2. This is the first time I've actually been able to know who the final 4 and final 2 would be (Well, not true, I called last year's final 4 but not the final 2). It was obvious from weeks away. And when those were final 4 it was a no-win situation in my eyes- Taker winning gives us the predictable, long-expected and probably disappointing Taker/Batista at Mania, Edge having won would've given us Edge/Cena version 1000, Orton winning would've given us the worst Mania main event in history bar NONE, and HBK winning would've given us a 1-man-DX overload leading to another Cena win to further make him '0vrcom teh oddz11!!'. Having zero surprise entrants also was a major disappointment. I'd have been happy with a jobber like Miz getting kicked out of the match and a mystery man replacing him, or replace Nitro and The Hardyz since they were already on the show. Anything to add some excitement, as this year's Rumble was a very bland match.
|
|
|
Post by royboy8 on Jan 29, 2007 14:18:37 GMT -5
3 face champs right now... I would have LOVED a heel to win (i honestly think the shows are best when a heel has the title and there's this big buildup to the face FINALLY winning it) But... MNM/Hardy match, Jobbing MNM right out, (when was the last time either of those guys won at a PPV?). Test winning the title? Yea right ( and it was worse than I thought, its like they arent even trying) Kennedy winning the title? nope, cause that would make TOO much sense to have him win it(uber heel, good on the mike, people would love him as champ, etc)... and it would mess up their long term plan of batista vs taker at WM(Kennedy being champ woulda made me start watching again... sadly no.) Umaga cena match was the only one I thought the heel MIGHT win... sadly I forgot we were talking about super cena that always "beats the odds" The rumble... There was too much buildup around undertaker and the title hunt where he was skrewed out of the title shot TWICE... Yes, sadly, this was very predictable. Dont get me wrong, with the exception of the ECW title, this was an entertaining show. Just the results make me believe the weekly shows will still be the same since NO titles changed hands... I wonder if WWE will ever listen to the fans again... It makes sense if you think about it.... Edge and Orton are Tag Champs who are in a tiff with each other. The Hardys win against MNM last night, then are eliminated by Edge and Orton which sets up a tag team title match between the two. Down the line I'm sure we'll see some more awesome stuff out of these two teams.
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 29, 2007 14:51:41 GMT -5
That's what I got off of seeing the results this morning (I decided not to get the PPV and couldn't check the computer last night.) It seems like it wouldn't have taken a genius to see how last night went. Take it from someone who actually saw the show last night. I would say it was not totally predictable, but not unpredicatable either. But the bottom line was, it was entertaining. I would suggest you try to watch the show, and if you feel the same way afterwards, that's fine. But don't judge it just off of the results. And for the record, the most predictable Rumble was 1995, for the fact that Diesel was champion, coming off of a breakup with HBK. Not to mention all the Wrestlecrap jobbers who participated. And 2002 and 2003 come in second and third.
|
|