|
Post by Banned Member on Jan 28, 2007 23:05:17 GMT -5
It's the one thing that he hasn't done. I'd assume, like the Kane title run everyone has been begging for, it's out of respect for his work throughout sixteen years. He deserved it. Who cares if it's the one thing he hasn't done? That just means that he was over enough that he didn't need it, and despite the fact that he needs to retire, and SOON, he still doesn't need that Rumble win. The fans would have accepted him as a challenger with no build whatsoever if he just walked into 'Mania and challenged whichever champion he wanted anyway. They tried that last year by having Rey win, and what happens we get our Gooker for this year.
|
|
mo
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,993
Member is Online
|
Post by mo on Jan 28, 2007 23:06:18 GMT -5
I don't care what any of you think, biggest markout in forever, that was just so f***ing awesome
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Jan 28, 2007 23:06:38 GMT -5
Second, I did not watch the show Well way to be armchair booker, because if you had watched it you'd realize how well executed and dramatic it was. Go watch the Rumble and get back to me. Again, even if it was well executed, and I'm not saying it wasn't, Taker doesn't need the win. He'll be over no matter what happens to him. Let a guy that can get some real credibility from winning the RR win it, because as far as I'm concerned, this Rumble was a wasted opportunity to get someone over, while rewarding a guy for being around for the longest time.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Jan 28, 2007 23:07:29 GMT -5
Who cares if it's the one thing he hasn't done? That just means that he was over enough that he didn't need it, and despite the fact that he needs to retire, and SOON, he still doesn't need that Rumble win. The fans would have accepted him as a challenger with no build whatsoever if he just walked into 'Mania and challenged whichever champion he wanted anyway. They tried that last year by having Rey win, and what happens we get our Gooker for this year. Well, yeah, but be fair, we probably would have had our "Eddie Gooker", for lack of a better term, whether Rey won or not. This just gave it more visibility.
|
|
|
Post by A Dubya (El Hombre Muerto) on Jan 29, 2007 0:32:01 GMT -5
I don't care what any of you think, biggest markout in forever, that was just so waxing awesome True dat. I still can't believe it, even though I thought it would happen, and he was my number 1 pick to win it. Spankymac, Who would you have liked to see win the Rumble (I mean, realistically within reason for WWE booking, so no Sabu or Shelton Benjamin)?
|
|
|
Post by EZ: Broken Bae on Jan 29, 2007 0:47:01 GMT -5
I don't care what anybody says, that was one hell of a moment.
Awesome to finally see him win it, and even more so now that the 3oth entarnt has actually gone on to win.
|
|
|
Post by normcoleman on Jan 29, 2007 0:48:27 GMT -5
It's cool to see the Deadman get it.
Now, I shall dance
|
|
|
Post by carter 15 on Jan 29, 2007 0:53:10 GMT -5
Taker Vs. HBK as the last two was awesome, loads of history... that Lawler completely forgot.
The right man won the way things have been built up, i can see a 4 way happening on the RAW side now (which in hindsight, if it does happen, it would've been really stupid to have a RAW guy win it).
The right man won, 1st PPV i've orderd since WM22, REALLY glad i did.
|
|
"IcePic" Rick Cobos
Don Corleone
www.ericbischoff.com - some great comedy material!!!
Posts: 2,002
|
Post by "IcePic" Rick Cobos on Jan 29, 2007 1:59:59 GMT -5
I had no problem with either HBK or Undertaker winning, but as for them being the winner and runner-up...
1997 called and asked for WWE to move on with some new blood please.
I wasn't expecting some new blood to win, but it wouldn't have been nice to seen someone who will be headlining five years from now to at least be a runner-up, give him the rub of almost beating HBK or Taker tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Larryhausen on Jan 29, 2007 4:47:11 GMT -5
It's the one thing that he hasn't done. I'd assume, like the Kane title run everyone has been begging for, it's out of respect for his work throughout sixteen years. He deserved it. Who cares if it's the one thing he hasn't done? That just means that he was over enough that he didn't need it, and despite the fact that he needs to retire, and SOON, he still doesn't need that Rumble win. The fans would have accepted him as a challenger with no build whatsoever if he just walked into 'Mania and challenged whichever champion he wanted anyway. But Taker actually winning the Rumble created a true rarity in the current WWE: A moment where both marks and(a good amount of) smarks could totally mark out. And I think that's really the higher priority of the Rumble: To Really get the fans excited.
|
|
|
Post by Topher is Human on Jan 29, 2007 5:32:20 GMT -5
Seriously Spank, your easily one of my favourite posters here, but I disagree with you here. Sure they could've used to Rumble to put someone over, but this was the 20th Rumble, why give this landmark to a guy hardly anyone knows. And the ending really was amazing.
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Jan 29, 2007 7:20:53 GMT -5
Here's what's happening:
We, as fans, judge what's right or wrong with wrestling based on what happens before that ends up working. At first we have the "lets see that again!" mentality, but once we get sick of it, we complain when they keep doing it anyway, and when we don't get sick of it, we complain when when they stop and swith to the original concept. We forget that the original concept of things remains, and isn't meant to be taken strictly as what it becomes based on what versions of it works only for a particular period of time.
For example:
The Royal Rumble is meant for either the #1 draw, or the strongest potential #1 draw to headline Wrestlemania and win the title. If a guy wins the Rumble and dosen't win the title at Wrestlemania, it's against the concept, for a reason of course, but it dosent become the concept.
In 2003, Brock Lesnar was both an up an comer anda top 4 draw. But as an up and comer, he was eventually going to become the #1 draw in the WWE eyes, so he one the Rumble, because they wanted him in the main event of Wrestlemania to win the title.
In 2004, Chris benoit, even after 18 years in the business, was in that up and comer status in the WWE, because he hadn't main evented WWE for a long period of time with the title. The same was done with him, Brock was just starting his prime on top, and could have done the same with him this year as well, but WWE decided to try and do the same thing with someone else, as long as they could be believable as someone who could hold that kind of merit for the time being.
In 2005, Batista got the same opportunity: See Brock lesnar 2003.
In 2006, Rey Mysterio got the same opportunity: See Chris benoit 2004.
So 90% of the time, when a guy wins the Royal Rumble, used as an opportunity to create a #1 draw match at Wrestlemania, that's what they do. But, only in recent years, (the last 4) have we seen an up and comer win the Rumble, and then actually win the title at Wrestlemania. Now it would seem that The purpose of the Rumble is to give a new guy the chance of a lifetime and win the Rumble for the "rub" of winning it. But this Isn't really true, It's for whoever can make up for the best match at Wrestlemania, no matter what their status is.
Study this: If someone Is TRUELY the biggest star in the company, then they should be in the main event of Wrestlemania year after year.
If at wrestlemania 23 this year, the best match thay can think of happens to be between an old veteran and a guy that's established, then so be it. You only sacrafice gining the younger guy the rub only if he can exseed the expectations of the majority of fans BEFORE the match takes place, not after it.
The concept of the Royal Rumble Isn't meant to go to a new guy every year and have them be in the main event of wrestlemania that year. That's just what it turned into from 2003 to 2006, because that's what made for the best programs.
|
|
hotrod
Don Corleone
No caption needed
Posts: 1,281
|
Post by hotrod on Jan 29, 2007 11:34:33 GMT -5
i liked the fact that there were two beloved faces duking it out at the end, i also liked the fact that a #30 entrant one, I don't mind that taker won, but next time i would like to see a mid carder win like shawn micheals in 95
|
|
Ragnal
Game Genie
Yanno what they say: All toasters toast El Dandy
Posts: 8,677,836
|
Post by Ragnal on Jan 29, 2007 11:41:03 GMT -5
Read between the lines-the only reason Batista will be facing Undertaker is so that they can try to make Batista look good.
Which won't happen.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Jan 29, 2007 12:04:41 GMT -5
The one guy that doesn't need the Rumble win to establish his credibility as a contender wins the thing. Great job, Vince, or whoever put that together. That was my exact feeling as well. The Rumble should help catapult someone to get them more over for a title run(See: Michaels, Shawn; Benoit, Chris). Undertaker is OVER. He could destroy al Qaida and find and kill Osama bin Laden, and he still wouldn't get any more over because he's already as over as a wrestler can possibly get.
|
|