|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Jan 28, 2007 9:45:25 GMT -5
One other time is having it done to death? Mysterio was 2 which is basically the same, but it dosent have the same stigma attached to it for whatever reason. Alright, I guess I should have clarified that I am tired of the #1 or #2 entrant winning. I consider 1 and 2 to be identical because both men are in the ring at the opening bell of the match. In 95, Shawn was #1 and won. In 99, Vince McMahon was #2 and won. In '04, Benoit entered at #1 and won and then Rey was #2 when he won last year.
|
|
Rick Mad
Grimlock
Rick Mad Champion
Posts: 14,613
|
Post by Rick Mad on Jan 28, 2007 10:18:47 GMT -5
I don't think 10/10/10 makes too much sense, seeing as ECW is essentially half the show Raw or SD is. I think 12/12/6 is probably more fair.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Jan 28, 2007 10:26:40 GMT -5
My only real complaint is that Balls Mahoney isn't in it. Besides that, I'm still expecting a great Rumble. I think he's still on the injured list after that elbow to the jaw a few weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on Jan 28, 2007 10:34:22 GMT -5
One other time is having it done to death? Mysterio was 2 which is basically the same, but it dosent have the same stigma attached to it for whatever reason. Alright, I guess I should have clarified that I am tired of the #1 or #2 entrant winning. I consider 1 and 2 to be identical because both men are in the ring at the opening bell of the match. In 95, Shawn was #1 and won. In 99, Vince McMahon was #2 and won. In '04, Benoit entered at #1 and won and then Rey was #2 when he won last year. For the record, HBK's win wasn't all that shocking, for me at least. In 1992 , Flair entered at #3 and won. Gorilla and Heenan played up huge that none of the first five wrestlers in had ever come close to winning. Flair goes practically the distance and wins Plus, HBK's Rumble was the shortest ever, with the durned 1 minute intervals. I do agree it's getting old. When a hoss type guy enters 25-30, logically he should win it.
|
|
|
Post by Cousin Judge on Jan 28, 2007 10:59:41 GMT -5
I hate how the crowd are always about 2 seconds ahead of the offical clock and never EVER manage to countdown the numbers in time
"3...2...1....YAYYY....2..1...YAAYY!!"
But the 10/10/10 argument doesn't work, not only because all Royal Rumbles need to have suprise entrants. Announcing all 30 constestants before the show is disapointing, one of the major appeal of the Rumbles has been the "Who's next?" factor, these days it seems we pretty much know
|
|
|
Post by ronsimmons on Jan 28, 2007 11:07:47 GMT -5
How about take out Jeff Hardy and Johnny Nitro since their already on the undercard, and take out Super Crazy. Replace them with Mike Knox, Balls Mahoney, and Matt Striker. Then replace Matt Hardy with the Boogieman. I'm just glad they have guys from the undercard in this year at all, they didn't last year.
|
|
TV's Mr. Neil
Trap-Jaw
My mind is aglow with whirling transient nodes of thought careening thru a cosmic vapor of invention
Posts: 285
|
Post by TV's Mr. Neil on Jan 28, 2007 14:30:51 GMT -5
In my opinion, there should be zero ECW wrestlers in the Royal Rumble. I've said this before; WWE needs to decide whether they're going to have separate brands or a single roster. They've been trying to have it both ways since 2002, and I'm getting tired of it.
The problem with ECW is that it's become WWE #3 behind Raw and Smackdown. It doesn't matter how many ECW guys they put in the Rumble. The fact that they're even there at all, competing in a WWE match under standard WWE rules makes the ECW division entirely meaningless. The whole point to having ECW back is that it represents an entirely different style of programming, and yet that unique style is marginalized whenever ECW crosses over into WWE PPVs, such as Royal Rumble and Survivor Series.
I've been saying this for years. All three brands should have their own unique shows without any crossovers. Ever. They should remain separate so that when the day comes that ECW wrestlers invade Raw, or vice versa, it's actually special.
|
|
|
Post by Big Daddy Bad Booking on Jan 28, 2007 14:37:49 GMT -5
Does ECW even have 10 guys on the roster? It the same six or seven people wrestling every week. My thoughts exactly. I'd say 12-12-6 for the brands.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jan 28, 2007 14:42:00 GMT -5
Yeah, but some guys are being pushed in ECW that could be in it.
Have Super Crazy be made part of ECW. And dump Masters for Elijah Burke and maybe Benjiman for Striker, because Haas isn't in it.
|
|
|
Post by Suck it Trebek! on Jan 28, 2007 14:47:28 GMT -5
I don't think 10/10/10 makes too much sense, seeing as ECW is essentially half the show Raw or SD is. I think 12/12/6 is probably more fair. Good point, but still too logical.
|
|
Big Hurt
Samurai Cop
Hot damn!
Posts: 2,118
|
Post by Big Hurt on Jan 28, 2007 14:52:56 GMT -5
The thing I don't like about the Royal Rumble... and I know this has been brought up before in a thread somewhere... is that the #1 entrant seems to have an uncanny knack of winning it all. When HBK first won as the #1 entrant in 1995 (I think it was 95), it was the first time that was ever done and it was genuinely shocking. Noawadays it has been done to death so much, that I would actually love to see the #30 entrant win since that has never actually happened yet. 1995 was entrants only every minute so it didn't even seem that big of a deal to me. But Benoit and Rey winning were booked right and I bought it. I hated that Batista won it in 05 after being in the ring only 10 minutes and Lesnar winning at #29.
|
|
|
Post by odanobunaga on Jan 28, 2007 14:57:35 GMT -5
In my opinion, there should be zero ECW wrestlers in the Royal Rumble. I've said this before; WWE needs to decide whether they're going to have separate brands or a single roster. They've been trying to have it both ways since 2002, and I'm getting tired of it. The problem with ECW is that it's become WWE #3 behind Raw and Smackdown. It doesn't matter how many ECW guys they put in the Rumble. The fact that they're even there at all, competing in a WWE match under standard WWE rules makes the ECW division entirely meaningless. The whole point to having ECW back is that it represents an entirely different style of programming, and yet that unique style is marginalized whenever ECW crosses over into WWE PPVs, such as Royal Rumble and Survivor Series. I've been saying this for years. All three brands should have their own unique shows without any crossovers. Ever. They should remain separate so that when the day comes that ECW wrestlers invade Raw, or vice versa, it's actually special. Even tought I agree with your ideia of three "REALLY" separeted shows, I fell that a cross brand Royal Rumble is a great thing.
|
|
TV's Mr. Neil
Trap-Jaw
My mind is aglow with whirling transient nodes of thought careening thru a cosmic vapor of invention
Posts: 285
|
Post by TV's Mr. Neil on Jan 29, 2007 10:09:16 GMT -5
And to further my point, consider that the Royal Rumble match itself was prefixed by the WWE Championship match, which was above and beyond more extreme than anything any of the ECW wrestlers did the entire night. After seeing Umaga pancake an announce table, smacked with a television monitor, and then choked-out with the ring rope; seeing Sabu being thrown through a table was a joke. And so was Sandman's presense. And the fact that all of the ECW wrestlers disappeared following the entrance of Khali.
At the risk of trailing off topic, I'll stop short of suggesting what I think WWE should do to make ECW special in a realistic way, but it definitely involves divorcing as much as possible from WWE (i.e., no hoss and no crossovers). ECW cannot shine as a unique product as long they keep inserting it into WWE shows. It'll just keep being "the third brand".
|
|