Throwing Someone Over the Top Rope = #1 Contender?

["Hollywood" Cactus Matt]

I'm not sure if this has been addressed before or not, but I was thinking about the Royal Rumble and a thought crossed my mind: how can the WWE explain (in kayfabe) why someone is automatically the number-one contender just because he threw someone (or multiple people) over the top rope? It happens in almost every standard match anyway; does that make Charlie Haas, Joey Mercury, or Robbie McAllister the number-one contender? Or - going old-school here - what about someone like the Berzerker? (this was even brought up in the '92 Rumble as "his specialty," IIRC.)

I know, it's silly, and I'm putting way too much thought into it - especially with the way WWE works these days - but I've always kinda wondered about it. Same thing for when Kurt Angle won the WHC in the battle royal - big deal, you can toss someone over the top rope. But can you beat them in a one-on-one match? Why should _______ be the number-one contender just because they can do something tons of wrestlers have done before?

Discuss.

[Scarlet Moon]

Because that's just the stipulation.

Kayfabe wise, you could argue that a wrestler only goes over the top rope in regular matches so much because they have no desire to stop. If you're getting into a position where you're being tossed out of the ring, you could use the few seconds to regroup, you see.

Whereas, in a Royal Rumble, you're putting all your efforts into staying in the ring, making that much more difficult.

Or something.

[Feargus McReddit]

theirstar said:

Because that's just the stipulation.

Kayfabe wise, you could argue that a wrestler only goes over the top rope in regular matches so much because they have no desire to stop. If you're getting into a position where you're being tossed out of the ring, you could use the few seconds to regroup, you see.

Whereas, in a Royal Rumble, you're putting all your efforts into staying in the ring, making that much more difficult.

Or something.

That's probably the answer that makes the most sense.

Well, to me anyway

[Joker]

Arguably it's because the wrestler survived and beat in the ring 29 other superstars.

Obviously this fails if you draw a late number and win.

Thus Benoit, Rey & Flair deserve it for endurance.

Whilst Brock Lesnar or Batista don't because they had late picks.

[The"threadicidal"bristolspapa]

I always felt that they should change the draw aspect of the match. Perhaps giving points for eliminations and for every minute you last. The draw aspect started with "King" Harley Race lobbying for #30 since the battle royal was his specialty match. It worked as a good gimmick back then , but the draw lost it's kayfabe purpose after awhile. From a booking perspective, it keeps the match cleaner and easier to follow.

[Error]

Its the Transitive Property in work. If Cena is eliminated by Taker and then Edge eliminates Taker, he in effect eliminated both.

So using this rule the winner has in effect eliminated the 29 others and by eliminating 29 people he has earned a title shot.

[Johnny Danger (Godz)]

joker said:

Arguably it's because the wrestler survived and beat in the ring 29 other superstars.

Obviously this fails if you draw a late number and win.

Thus Benoit, Rey & Flair deserve it for endurance.

Whilst Brock Lesnar or Batista don't because they had late picks.

On that note, I just want to say how much I HATE when any wrestler talks about "Throwing 29 other superstars over the top rope" (Or, god help them, those who talk about going through 30 men....GRADE SCHOOL MATH, LEARN IT!) No one ever eliminates 29 people on their own.


That is, not till next year when Cena enters the Rumble......

[Avalanche Alvarez]

cactusmatt said:

I'm not sure if this has been addressed before or not, but I was thinking about the Royal Rumble and a thought crossed my mind: how can the WWE explain (in kayfabe) why someone is automatically the number-one contender just because he threw someone (or multiple people) over the top rope? It happens in almost every standard match anyway; does that make Charlie Haas, Joey Mercury, or Robbie McAllister the number-one contender? Or - going old-school here - what about someone like the Berzerker? (this was even brought up in the '92 Rumble as "his specialty," IIRC.)

I know, it's silly, and I'm putting way too much thought into it - especially with the way WWE works these days - but I've always kinda wondered about it. Same thing for when Kurt Angle won the WHC in the battle royal - big deal, you can toss someone over the top rope. But can you beat them in a one-on-one match? Why should _______ be the number-one contender just because they can do something tons of wrestlers have done before?

Discuss.

It does seem pretty stupid.
I'd prefer one on one matches with 30 guys, but that'd take too long, so...

[Stu]

From IMDB.com: Regarding the film, Armageddon's, premise, Ben Affleck asked director Michael Bay, "Wouldn't it be easier for NASA to train astronauts how to drill rather than training drillers to be astronauts?" Bay told Affleck to shut up.

I'm not telling you to shut up, but I'm using the above quote just to show that there's no point arguing about the logic; things are just the way they are and we should accept them.

[The"threadicidal"bristolspapa]

What a sad day this is when Ben Affleck has a point.

[Sajoa Moe]

godz said:

joker said:

Arguably it's because the wrestler survived and beat in the ring 29 other superstars.

Obviously this fails if you draw a late number and win.

Thus Benoit, Rey & Flair deserve it for endurance.

Whilst Brock Lesnar or Batista don't because they had late picks.

On that note, I just want to say how much I HATE when any wrestler talks about "Throwing 29 other superstars over the top rope" (Or, god help them, those who talk about going through 30 men....GRADE SCHOOL MATH, LEARN IT!) No one ever eliminates 29 people on their own.


That is, not till next year when Cena enters the Rumble......

Sometimes they say "outlast 29 other men", which is much more appropriate and correct.

[Tha Kid Joker]

jinxed said:

Its the Transitive Property in work. If Cena is eliminated by Taker and then Edge eliminates Taker, he in effect eliminated both.

So using this rule the winner has in effect eliminated the 29 others and by eliminating 29 people he has earned a title shot.

The STD theory. Gotcha.

[EvilMasterBetty, Esq.]

Well, hypothetically a "better" wrestler would be able to keep himself it the ring longer and withstand more punishment.

Also, there's the idea of maybe someone getting a shot who struggles in 1 on 1 matches.